View Full Version : FBI reason for. 40cal
Does anyone know the specifics as to why the FBI decided the 180gr .40 cal (10mm) JHP @ 950 fps was superior? Were the 9mm and .45 cal JHP at the time not fitting the parameters set and has technology made it moot today?
warpedcamshaft
01-30-12, 19:23
Read this:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
warpedcamshaft
01-30-12, 19:26
Also, keep in mind that the document was written some time ago...
jmlshooter
01-30-12, 20:30
They seriously said the .357 Magnum = .38 Special except at longer ranges.
That happened.
Wow.
warpedcamshaft
01-30-12, 21:29
They seriously said the .357 Magnum = .38 Special except at longer ranges.
That happened.
Wow.
Incorrect, the article says that the difference in performance did not justify the "sound and fury" of firing it.
Read this:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
http://www.texassmallarmsresearch.com/TechInfo/FBI-10mm/FBI-10mm.pdf
The_War_Wagon
01-30-12, 21:47
EEOC hires + full-house 10mm = injured limp wrists... :rolleyes:
jmlshooter
01-30-12, 21:52
That was seriously your takeaway?
This is written under the guise of scientific analysis. How do you quantify "sound and fury" such that those variables outweigh the performance difference between .357 and .38? There is NO comparison in performance.
The most prestigious law enforcement agency in the country just told you the .357 kicks too much and makes too much noise to care about the difference between it and the .38.
What an authority.
jmlshooter
01-30-12, 22:00
Talk about a conclusion in search of a methodology!
The .357 is essentially ignored.
"What's the best load for a .357?"
"Who cares! The best .38 load's pretty much the same thing."
FBI said this.
If I read correctly, the FBI compaired the 180gr .40 cal to the 147gr 9mm and. 185 gr. 45cal and did not include other bullet types. I would think they would want to broaden the choices a bit. Concerning the noise vs. performance mentioned regarding the .357 vs. .38, I would think the same regarding the noise vs. performance with the .40 vs. .45... fair assesment?
There is NO comparison in performance.
What are you basing this on? Experts like Dr Roberts, Dr Fackler and Duncan McPherson have repeatedly shown that the differences in terminal ballistics between .38 Special and .357 Magnum are are such that the recoil and and muzzle flash of the .357 is not a worthwhile price to pay for the negligent gain. It's the same with 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. The minute differences in terminal performance between these calibers is such that one is better off choosing a round that they shoot accurately and suits their likely engagement scenarios. As an example: the 9mm offers the weakest barrier penetration, but high magazine capacity in a manageable size. The .45 offers outstanding barrier penetration, but far less capacity unless you go with a gun that has a rather large grip. The .40 strikes a balance between the two. However, all of the service pistol calibers from .38 Special to .45 ACP offer relatively poor incapacitation potential and thus, one must decide what their priorities are when choosing from among them.
There's a lot more to selecting a service pistol than just how fast its rounds leave the barrel. Agencies have to consider costs of equipment and ammunition. They have to address the needs of shooters with different builds and hand sizes. There should be commonality of caliber and platform in order to standardize training. Likely engagement scenarios will be taken into effect. For instance, highway patrol officers will likely be involved in gunfights in and around vehicles more so than an investigator from the EPA. Instead of focusing on the splitting of ballistic hairs, it's better to choose a platform that can be fired accurately, suits likely engagement scenarios and offers an adequate magazine capacity for the task. If you feel that's a .357 magnum, then so be it, but after several decades of testing by the FBI and other agencies that has not been the case in the .38 vs .357 comparisons. The FBI exhaustively tests ammunition scientifically. They examine OIS after action reports from across North America continually. They examine marksmanship in combat vs. the range. There is perhaps no other law enforcement agency in the world that has the extensive history and experience in such testing and examination as the FBI.
Reading here should shed some light on this subject:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
If Bullet A has virtually identical penetration and expansion as Bullet B, but does it with less muzzle blast, flash, and recoil then what is the problem? Why wouldnt you go with Bullet A?
If Bullet A has virtually identical penetration and expansion as Bullet B, but does it with less muzzle blast, flash, and recoil then what is the problem? Why wouldnt you go with Bullet A?
Then why is the FBI using the XM556FBIT3 in their M4's?
.40 expansion and 17" or so penetration...
...FMJ .45ACP = superior?
more forces at work here than just that.
Noone is going out hunting deer with .38 SPL in their 357's.
xrayoneone
01-30-12, 23:26
If Bullet A has virtually identical penetration and expansion as Bullet B, but does it with less muzzle blast, flash, and recoil then what is the problem? Why wouldnt you go with Bullet A?
This is a good point.
People can bash the FBI all they want but their Firearms Training Unit helped develop many testing protocols and helped ammunition companies develop better performing loads. One bullet/caliber/gun cannot do all things great, the FBI has been able to develop some good ideas on what LEOs should expect from certIain loads, firearms, etc.
Generalpie
01-30-12, 23:35
Bullet technology has increased dramatically since the first bullet tests and the advent of the 10mm.
Currently all handguns of the "regular" calibers are pretty much equal in performance. I don't believe that was the case when the hydra shok was state of the art.
Then why is the FBI using the XM556FBIT3 in their M4's?
.40 expansion and 17" or so penetration...
...FMJ .45ACP = superior?
more forces at work here than just that.
Noone is going out hunting deer with .38 SPL in their 357's.
Comparing a pistol round to a rifle round is stupid. The rifle can take advantage of the TSC wounding effects, the pistol round cannot. The rifle round can defeat barriers and armor that that the pistol round cannot. However comparing the .38spec to .357mag, while trying to draw parallels to rifle to handgun is worse.
As for your claim that nobody hunts with .38spec, well, thats born of pure ignorance on your part. People here in Texas sucessfully hunt whitetail and axis deer with .38cspec in both handguns and rifles. I know people that hunt feral hogs with .38spec. Point being whether something "hits harder" doesnt mean a whole lot terminally.
Then why is the FBI using the XM556FBIT3 in their M4's?
.40 expansion and 17" or so penetration...
...FMJ .45ACP = superior?
more forces at work here than just that.
Noone is going out hunting deer with .38 SPL in their 357's.
You can't compare handgun and rifles. Rifles, firing rifle rounds not pistol calibers, actually reach enough velocity that it matters.
Comparing a pistol round to a rifle round is stupid. The rifle can take advantage of the TSC wounding effects, the pistol round cannot. The rifle round can defeat barriers and armor that that the pistol round cannot. However comparing the .38spec to .357mag, while trying to draw parallels to rifle to handgun is worse.
As for your claim that nobody hunts with .38spec, well, thats born of pure ignorance on your part. People here in Texas sucessfully hunt whitetail and axis deer with .38cspec in both handguns and rifles. I know people that hunt feral hogs with .38spec. Point being whether something "hits harder" doesnt mean a whole lot terminally.
Well then I cannot argue my ignorance on the matter of the .38spec/hunting.
However, I do think that the 38 spl is not as effective as the 357 Magnum.
The faster you push an object through a medium, the larger the permanent cavity will be.
Rarely is the cavity as large as the projectile itself regarding handgun velocity as you all have noted, when talking about flesh, as it is elastic. However, more velocity means less time for the flesh to move out of the way of the projectile, and more is thus destroyed/damaged by the faster bullet.
The final resting size of the projectiles is not fully indicative of the tissue destroyed--even if TSC is not taken advantage of fully as in rifle-rounds.
Further, the faster a projectile is moving, the more hydraulic force is actuated against the inside of the JHP's cavity. This means more reliable expansion, especially when heavy clothing is involved.
Well then I cannot argue my ignorance on the matter of the .38spec/hunting.
However, I do think that the 38 spl is not as effective as the 357 Magnum.
The faster you push an object through a medium, the larger the permanent cavity will be.
Rarely is the cavity as large as the projectile itself regarding handgun velocity as you all have noted, when talking about flesh, as it is elastic. However, more velocity means less time for the flesh to move out of the way of the projectile, and more is thus destroyed/damaged by the faster bullet.
The final resting size of the projectiles is not fully indicative of the tissue destroyed--even if TSC is not taken advantage of fully as in rifle-rounds.
Further, the faster a projectile is moving, the more hydraulic force is actuated against the inside of the JHP's cavity. This means more reliable expansion, especially when heavy clothing is involved.
Been a while since I browsed the pdf. What barrel lenght are they talking about? Out of shorter barrels it has been shown quite a bit that 38spl is close to 357 in terminal ballistics. And the extra kick from the 357 makes follow up shots and training harder so the 38 is preferred.
ComradeBoris
01-31-12, 08:44
Been a while since I browsed the pdf. What barrel lenght are they talking about? Out of shorter barrels it has been shown quite a bit that 38spl is close to 357 in terminal ballistics. And the extra kick from the 357 makes follow up shots and training harder so the 38 is preferred.
This mimic my understanding of the matter. In short I thought the .357 is only beneficial out of a longer barrel, and that the differences between the two (.38 / .357) wasn't much in <4" barrels.
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 09:29
What are you basing this on? Experts like Dr Roberts, Dr Fackler and Duncan McPherson have repeatedly shown that the differences in terminal ballistics between .38 Special and .357 Magnum are are such that the recoil and and muzzle flash of the .357 is not a worthwhile price to pay for the negligent gain. It's the same with 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. The minute differences in terminal performance between these calibers is such that one is better off choosing a round that they shoot accurately and suits their likely engagement scenarios. As an example: the 9mm offers the weakest barrier penetration, but high magazine capacity in a manageable size. The .45 offers outstanding barrier penetration, but far less capacity unless you go with a gun that has a rather large grip. The .40 strikes a balance between the two. However, all of the service pistol calibers from .38 Special to .45 ACP offer relatively poor incapacitation potential and thus, one must decide what their priorities are when choosing from among them.
There's a lot more to selecting a service pistol than just how fast its rounds leave the barrel. Agencies have to consider costs of equipment and ammunition. They have to address the needs of shooters with different builds and hand sizes. There should be commonality of caliber and platform in order to standardize training. Likely engagement scenarios will be taken into effect. For instance, highway patrol officers will likely be involved in gunfights in and around vehicles more so than an investigator from the EPA. Instead of focusing on the splitting of ballistic hairs, it's better to choose a platform that can be fired accurately, suits likely engagement scenarios and offers an adequate magazine capacity for the task. If you feel that's a .357 magnum, then so be it, but after several decades of testing by the FBI and other agencies that has not been the case in the .38 vs .357 comparisons. The FBI exhaustively tests ammunition scientifically. They examine OIS after action reports from across North America continually. They examine marksmanship in combat vs. the range. There is perhaps no other law enforcement agency in the world that has the extensive history and experience in such testing and examination as the FBI.
Reading here should shed some light on this subject:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
Oh, I don't know ... common sense? That you've got the same projectile being driven out of a barrel way, way faster?
You've run right down the checklist in this post:
1. Appeal to authorities who supposedly support your contention but without any reference.
2. Make broad-brush, inaccurate statements like "9mm offers the weakest barrier penetration" and ".45 offers outstanding barrier penetration."
3. Argue against a straw man who favors the .357 for all purposes.
4. Appeal to the original authority being scrutinized (the FBI).
How many times has the FBI changed calibers and service weapons since that was written, by the way? They've gone from 10mm to 40, with 9 optional. They've gone from a failed S&W 10mm to Sig to Glock.
Have we really gotten to the point where we argue whether the .357 Magnum is more effective than the .38 Special? Goodness gracious. I don't carry a .357, and I'm not a .357 "fanboy," but this is ridiculous.
In reality, I think a couple of things were going on:
1. No one wanted to discuss the .357 Magnum. They said they wanted to go to automatics IN THE ANALYSIS. Consequently, they excluded data that didn't fit their conclusion.
2. Smith wanted everyone to switch. Smith was selling them guns at a deep discount as a "loss leader" (again, in the article). Do you think S&W wanted the FBI to tell other, smaller agencies, "Yeah, WE'RE switching, but YOUR current .357 wheelguns from S&W are just fine." Uh, no. That's why they call it a "loss leader." They wanted everyone to switch to automatics. Ironically, this benefited Glock far more than S&W simply because Glock made a better mousetrap.
"The faster you push an object through a medium, the larger the permanent cavity will be."
This is not necessarily accurate, as can be shown by research where projectiles were shot up above 6000 fps. However, once a projectile upsets, it is generally correct that higher velocity projectiles will create a larger TEMPORARY cavity.
"You can't compare handgun and rifles. Rifles, firing rifle rounds not pistol calibers, actually reach enough velocity that it matters."
Wise advice.
"Out of shorter barrels it has been shown quite a bit that 38spl is close to 357 in terminal ballistics. And the extra kick from the 357 makes follow up shots and training harder so the 38 is preferred.
and
In short I thought the .357 is only beneficial out of a longer barrel, and that the differences between the two (.38 / .357) wasn't much in <4" barrels."
Yes and FBI revolvers at that time tended to be in the 2-3" range...
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 11:40
I don't want this to sound like a conspiracy theory, because it's not:
But do you think that FBI's post-event analysis of the .357 that led to the 10mm might have had something to do with the fact that the Miami agents were carrying .38 +P's in their .357's?
I see a lot of emotional responses here and none of it concerning my topic. As I read in the article, and have read from other sources, faster does not always equal better. If your JHP is not within a velocity window, faster or slower than, your performance is hindered. Therefore .357mag may not always better because it goes faster than the bullet was designed for thus penetrating less. If I understand incorrectly then I must study somemore. Also, look at all of the .357 compact revolvers that are made and how many people actually prefer the .38 because the trade-off is not worth it. Just saying...
During the early to mid 1980’s, like many people, I was duped by articles singing the praises of the .357 Mag 125 gr JHP. I carried a 4” 686 and a customized 3” M13 loaded with Fed 125 gr JHP. However, after going on active military duty and being in a position to test ammunition at the Letterman Army Institute of Research with Dr. Fackler, it became obvious that the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP’s tended to have relatively shallow penetration, frequently fragmented with resultant decrease in permanent crush cavity, and had temporary cavities of insufficient size to contribute significantly to wounding. In addition, these loads had a large muzzle flash and blast, as well as a relatively harsh recoil which inhibited accuracy and re-engagement speed. As the FBI established a science based ammunition testing program, their research data also showed less than stellar performance from the lightweight .357 Mag loadings, including the 125 gr JHP’s. .357 Mag can certainly offer adequate terminal ballistics, however, there is a reason very few agencies issue .357 mag revolvers for self-defense/force protection purposes anymore. I personally would prefer a good service pistol in 9mm/.40 S&W/.45 ACP over a .357 mag revolver for SD/duty use. We don’t do much .357 Mag testing anymore, as it simply is not used by the folks we test for, however, in past years, like the other facilities noted above, in our testing the lightweight 125 gr and under .357 Mag loadings often had insufficient penetration, while the 158 gr and heavier loadings frequently penetrated deeper than ideal for use on biped opponents. To be honest, I no longer have much use for .357 Mag, always choosing a 4-5" .44 Mag revolver (wouldn't mind a .41 Mag or hot .45 Colt) for any backcountry purposes and preferring the "controlability" and reduced blast/flash of .38 Sp +P loadings for urban self-defense use in 2-3" barrel revolvers. The best modern .357 Mag loadings we have tested have been the Winchester 180 gr Partition Gold and loads using the Barnes XPB all copper bullets when shot from barrels of 4" and longer.
For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. The CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data from 1989-90, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their 4" duty revolvers. I first saw the data when it was presented during a wound ballistic conference I attended at the CHP Academy in the early 1990's; I heard it discussed again at a CHP Officer Involved Shootings Investigation Team meeting in November of 1997 at Vallejo, CA. The information reviewed the differences in ammunition terminal performance such as penetration depth, recovered bullet characteristics, tissue damage, as well as other physiological measurements and physical evidence detailed during forensic analysis.
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 11:53
DocGKR,
I have probably read everything on this forum multiple times because of the wealth of fascinating information here. Your arguments and findings about the performance of the various modern calibers and loadings are overwhelming, so there's really no point in arguing any of that with you.
What I would like you to do is take what you know back to a snapshot in time when that article was written and the available loadings at the time:
What would have precluded the .357 Magnum from any analysis by the FBI post-Miami? It was basically an afterthought in their discussion.
1. Do you think the drive to automatics was the primary factor for its exclusion?
2. Do you think that the fact that the agents in question weren't carrying .357 Magnum loads in their .357's was a factor (potential for embarrassment at the difference in performance)?
John Hearne
01-31-12, 12:33
1. Do you think the drive to automatics was the primary factor for its exclusion?
The FBI got serious with it's ammo testing post-Miami Firefight. While there are many valuable lessons in Miami, the inherent inferiority of the revolver as a police service weapon is one of the big takeaways. While ammo capacity is limited, revolvers are much harder to reload and especially with just one hand.
It was the Bureau's intention to allow agents to qualify with either the reduced 10mm or a full-house 10mm based on their ability to shoot it well. Very much like loading your revolver with 38 or 357 based on your shooting ability. This plan never was implemented because the chose pistol was simply too large to be carried by most agents.
2. Do you think that the fact that the agents in question weren't carrying .357 Magnum loads in their .357's was a factor (potential for embarrassment at the difference in performance)?[/QUOTE]
The presence of .357 magnum at the scene is still debated. If you watch the FBI video, Agents state that they could tell the difference between Gordon McNeil's 357 and the 38's fired by other agents. If you look at the FBI report, the paperwork says McNeil was loaded with 38's.
I don't think that a lack of 357's would have been especially embarassing given the trouble reloading revolvers with just one hand.
This is not necessarily accurate, as can be shown by research where projectiles were shot up above 6000 fps. However, once a projectile upsets, it is generally correct that higher velocity projectiles will create a larger TEMPORARY cavity.
Wise advice.
Yes and FBI revolvers at that time tended to be in the 2-3" range...
If you push an expanded JHP through a medium a few hundred fps faster (but still below TSC mattering) than another JHP of the same diameter, considering that the medium is elastic, you are saying the slower object will create as big a permanent hole as the faster one? I do not understand how this is possible, but then, you have seen more bodies than I, so experience > apparently flawed logic.
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 13:53
How do you quantify "officer perception," and what metrics are included in "objective crime scene measurements"?
Officer perception is not quantifiable--it is what the officer reports in the post-shooting interview; things like "the muzzle flash was so large, it obscured my vision", "I could see my bullets hitting the subject, but he did not seem to show any response to being shot", "I emptied my first magazine and had difficulty getting my next magazine out of the pouch so I could reload", "I remember clearly seeing my front sight", "I don't remember seeing my front sight", etc...
Objective crime scene measurements include factors like distance to target, physical characteristics of any intervening intermediate barriers, number of shots fired, angle of incidence, position of participants, etc... In other words, any parameters that the crime scene techs will be able to elucidate from their investigation.
"1. Do you think the drive to automatics was the primary factor for its exclusion?
2. Do you think that the fact that the agents in question weren't carrying .357 Magnum loads in their .357's was a factor (potential for embarrassment at the difference in performance)?"
1. Yes 2. No (especially since there is minimal difference in terminal performance from the short barrels of the revolvers in use)
"If you push an expanded JHP through a medium a few hundred fps faster (but still below TSC mattering) than another JHP of the same diameter, considering that the medium is elastic, you are saying the slower object will create as big a permanent hole as the faster one?"
The permanent cavity will be exactly the same size.
Alaskapopo
01-31-12, 14:51
I see a lot of emotional responses here and none of it concerning my topic. As I read in the article, and have read from other sources, faster does not always equal better. If your JHP is not within a velocity window, faster or slower than, your performance is hindered. Therefore .357mag may not always better because it goes faster than the bullet was designed for thus penetrating less. If I understand incorrectly then I must study somemore. Also, look at all of the .357 compact revolvers that are made and how many people actually prefer the .38 because the trade-off is not worth it. Just saying...
You have a lot more power to work with in the .357 magnum. You can push heavier bullets faster to ensure deeper penetration and greater expansion with deeper penetration. In my opinion an ideal 357 mag load would approximate the 9mm in power levels. That is a better balance of recoil to terminal performance. The .38 special is ok but its not quite where I want it to be even with +P+ ammo.
Pat
If you push an expanded JHP through a medium a few hundred fps faster (but still below TSC mattering) than another JHP of the same diameter, considering that the medium is elastic, you are saying the slower object will create as big a permanent hole as the faster one? I do not understand how this is possible, but then, you have seen more bodies than I, so experience > apparently flawed logic.
It might help if you get a steak and a rounded tip metal rod. Push the rod through the steak then slam the rod into the steak. The hole left by both approaches is going to be the same. You are only physically damaging so much tissue and muscle/flesh is pretty elastic and isn't damaged much by temporary displacement.
Well then I cannot argue my ignorance on the matter of the .38spec/hunting.
OK.
However, I do think that the 38 spl is not as effective as the 357 Magnum.
With common self defense rounds, its a wash. Take the 135gr+P Speer GDHP in .38spec, and the 135gr Speer GDHP in .357mag for example. Both are 4-inch and shorter loads. One is doing what, 850 (860fps) while the other is doing around 1,000 (990fps). Not really a big difference.
Where the difference really occurs is when one is to take a 180gr Winchester PG in .357 mag and puts it up against the previosuly mentioned .38spec load from Speer. Thats simple physics, heavier penetrates more. That said, what are the trade offs?
The faster you push an object through a medium, the larger the permanent cavity will be.
Not at all. The permanent crush cavity is affected by what the bullet actually comes into contact with. It has nothing to do with velocity of the round. A FMJ at .45acp velocity and an FMJ at .45Super velocity will have virtually identical permanent crush cavities.
Rarely is the cavity as large as the projectile itself regarding handgun velocity as you all have noted, when talking about flesh, as it is elastic. However, more velocity means less time for the flesh to move out of the way of the projectile, and more is thus destroyed/damaged by the faster bullet.
There is a difference between cutting tissue and merely shoving it aside. An expanded quality JHP like a Ranger T, Gold Dot, HST will cut more, versus a standard FMJ just pushing aside tissue. If you've ever seen flesh shot with an FMJ, many times it PCC will be smaller than the actual bullet diameter.
The final resting size of the projectiles is not fully indicative of the tissue destroyed--even if TSC is not taken advantage of fully as in rifle-rounds.
Sure it is. Expand more, cut more. Expand less, cut less.
Further, the faster a projectile is moving, the more hydraulic force is actuated against the inside of the JHP's cavity. This means more reliable expansion, especially when heavy clothing is involved.
Meh, not necessarily. I think it has more to do with bullet design. Do you think a 155gr .40S&W Hornady XTP JHP is going to open better against a 180gr .40S&W Federal HST? I dont, even though the XTP is faster than the HST by at least 200fps.
In the .357 magnum, how does the Winchester 145 gr Silvertip stand as a self-defense load?
I don't want this to sound like a conspiracy theory, because it's not:
But do you think that FBI's post-event analysis of the .357 that led to the 10mm might have had something to do with the fact that the Miami agents were carrying .38 +P's in their .357's?
The presence of .357 magnum at the scene is still debated. If you watch the FBI video, Agents state that they could tell the difference between Gordon McNeil's 357 and the 38's fired by other agents. If you look at the FBI report, the paperwork says McNeil was loaded with 38's.
All of the official accounts of the incident document McNeil's gun was loaded with the issue .38 Special +P, and the empties recovered from his position were such. Especially also given that he connected with two of the six rounds he fired, (putting Matix out of the fight), I'm inclined to believe Supervisory Special Agent McNeill was following protocol, despite a "famous gunwriter's" libelous postulations to the contrary. To believe that a conspiracy, involving a large amount of respected professionals, exists solely to hide McNeill's use of .357 ammunition, is loony.
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 19:49
I'm confused, Jake'sdad.
My theory was quite the opposite. That the absence of .357 ammo in .357 guns was something that the FBI would rather not get into.
Alaskapopo
01-31-12, 19:57
I'm confused, Jake'sdad.
My theory was quite the opposite. That the absence of .357 ammo in .357 guns was something that the FBI would rather not get into.
It was common at the time for LEO agencies to use +p 38 ammo instead of .357 mag for a few reasons.
1. Recoil issues . (lots of officers had problems shooting full house .357 mag ammo.
2. Public perception against magnum loads at the time.
3. Wear and tear on the guns. K frames broke down after shooting a fair amount of magnum ammo. It was never meant to be shot extensively with the .357 mag. Rather carried with the mag and shot with .38's for practice. But then police training improved and we started training the way we fought. Which took its toll on K frames in .357.
"That the absence of .357 ammo in .357 guns was something that the FBI would rather not get into."
Why? As noted, the use of +P was quite common in LE and never appeared to be an issue in any of the post Miami incident AAR's or FBI Wound Ballistic Workshops at that time. Nor would the use of .357 Mag vs. .38 Sp ammo made any difference at all in the outcome of the Miami incident.
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 21:39
This is the one conclusion of yours (and the FBI's) that I'm really struggling with:
That barrel length makes the .38/.357 negligible. Just having a hard time with it when you compare muzzle energy.
Alaskapopo
01-31-12, 21:42
This is the one conclusion of yours (and the FBI's) that I'm really struggling with:
That barrel length makes the .38/.357 negligible. Just having a hard time with it when you compare muzzle energy.
Tactics meaning poor tactics is responsible for much of the out come in the 1986 shootout. For example rather than waiting for Miami PD to arrive the agents chose to engage two heavily armed robbers on their own. Lets face it the FBI is great at a lot of things but their field agents have more in common with accountants than cops.
Pat
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 21:45
You're discussing something totally different.
I relly enjoy your posts, btw.
warpedcamshaft
01-31-12, 21:57
This thread has encountered an incredible amount of scope creep...
Alaskapopo
01-31-12, 22:07
This thread has encountered an incredible amount of scope creep...
Sorry my point was that this incident was used as a reason to update and change our ammo standards which was a good thing. However the real failure was tactics. I am all for improved technology in bullets and guns but lets call a spade a spade. I don't think it would have mattered if the agents all had 10mm Glock 20's.
Pat
I'm confused, Jake'sdad.
My theory was quite the opposite. That the absence of .357 ammo in .357 guns was something that the FBI would rather not get into.
Your "theory" is bullshit. It couldn't be more irrelevant.
As Dr. Roberts points out, the popular .357 magnum LE loads of the day, wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome. Supervisory Special Agent McNeill's .38 Special rounds took Matix out of the fight. If anything, one could make a case they might not have performed as well.
Despite mythological books, and gunwriters with ties to ammunition factories would have you believe, today, we know what makes handgun projectiles work. And it's not "hydrostatic shock" or other such drivel.
The .38 Special rounds that McNeill fired, did their job. The real failures that took place that day, were not ammunition related. They were in policies, training, mindset, and tactics, all of which were addressed by the bureau afterwards.
Btw, Gordon McNeill passed away of cancer in 2004. I was lucky enough to know him. He was a true American hero.
This thread has encountered an incredible amount of scope creep...
Let's see...the Op asked about why thebureau went to .40 S&W. I think most posts were germane to the discussion.
Sorry my point was that this incident was used as a reason to update and change our ammo standards which was a good thing. However the real failure was tactics. I am all for improved technology in bullets and guns but lets call a spade a spade. I don't think it would have mattered if the agents all had 10mm Glock 20's.
Pat
Pretty much. Better equipment was available to the agents that day, that wasn't used.
Tactics meaning poor tactics is responsible for much of the out come in the 1986 shootout. For example rather than waiting for Miami PD to arrive the agents chose to engage two heavily armed robbers on their own. Lets face it the FBI is great at a lot of things but their field agents have more in common with accountants than cops.
Pat
You're right, though today things have changed. FBI field agents are better trained, and better equipped. The Platt Matix takedown would go quite differently.
Alaskapopo
01-31-12, 23:07
You're right, though today things have changed. FBI field agents are better trained, and better equipped. The Platt Matix takedown would go quite differently.
Thats good. In fairness I have not worked with them on a case and only encountered them at training. They just came across as the suit wearing types who don't get their hands dirty.
Pat
This is the one conclusion of yours (and the FBI's) that I'm really struggling with:
That barrel length makes the .38/.357 negligible. Just having a hard time with it when you compare muzzle energy.
The mistake youre making here is assuming that muzzle energy has anything to do with the terminal ballistics of a pistol round. It does not. In fact if we go by the definition of energy, its the ability to do work. The problem is pistol rounds dont have the ability to do that work.
So with that said, what do you have left?
Round A which has more flash, blast, and recoil with the .357 diameter bullet.
Then you have Round B with less flash, blast, and recoil with the same diameter bullet as Round A.
Its the whole "doing more with less" concept.
jmlshooter
01-31-12, 23:22
Seems that you had already decided whatever I had to say was bullshit before you even understood what I was saying. Impolite, but whatever.
I'm trying to close the intellectual gap here and understand WHY a round with significantly more energy at the muzzle supposedly does not outperform another with significantly less. If someone can explain that in a way I can understand, that would be neat.
Seems that you had already decided whatever I had to say was bullshit before you even understood what I was saying. Impolite, but whatever.
You said:
My theory was quite the opposite. That the absence of .357 ammo in .357 guns was something that the FBI would rather not get into.
What was your "theory" based on?
I'm trying to close the intellectual gap here and understand WHY a round with significantly more energy at the muzzle supposedly does not outperform another with significantly less. If someone can explain that in a way I can understand, that would be neat.
Where do you suppose the gap is?
Magsafe 9mm 64 grain has a muzzle energy of 540 ft lbs.
Winchester .45 ACP 230 grain T series, has a muzzle energy of 396 Ft lb's.
I guess the Magsafe 9mm, supposedly outperforms the .45 SXT.
Thats good. In fairness I have not worked with them on a case and only encountered them at training. They just came across as the suit wearing types who don't get their hands dirty.
Pat
I might rather have a local deputy with a GED cover me in a bar fight, but you need a little more grey matter working terrorism and financial crimes.
I worked with several guys on joint task forces, and they're just like any other agency, some good guys and some slugs. They have some great street cops that I'd be glad to work a car with.
warpedcamshaft
02-01-12, 01:00
Let's see...the Op asked about why thebureau went to .40 S&W. I think most posts were germane to the discussion.
Hey, keep posting sir. It is just great to have people around who know everything and aren't afraid to argue about it...
Alaskapopo
02-01-12, 01:07
I might rather have a local deputy with a GED cover me in a bar fight, but you need a little more grey matter working terrorism and financial crimes.
I worked with several guys on joint task forces, and they're just like any other agency, some good guys and some slugs. They have some great street cops that I'd be glad to work a car with.
Very true but terrorism is way above my pay grade. Unfortunately gun fights have more in common with bar fights than investigating financial crimes.
Pat
Seems that you had already decided whatever I had to say was bullshit before you even understood what I was saying. Impolite, but whatever.
I know I sure did. That said I was polite enough not to day anything rude. You are attempting to equate muzzle energy with the terminal performance, when science has proven otherwise.
I'm trying to close the intellectual gap here and understand WHY a round with significantly more energy at the muzzle supposedly does not outperform another with significantly less. If someone can explain that in a way I can understand, that would be neat.
Again, energy is merely the ability for work to occur. In terminal ballistics that energy is a contributor to the temporary stretch cavity. Pistol rounds arent fast enough for the TSC to tear, so the energy is just temporary.
Read: Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. It contains the answers you seek.
Hey, keep posting sir. It is just great to have people around who know everything and aren't afraid to agrue about it...
Nah...not hardly.
It's probably just the juxtaposition between your level of knowledge and mine that makes it seem that way to you....
In bold.
Oh, I don't know ... common sense? That you've got the same projectile being driven out of a barrel way, way faster?
So it's speed that's the deciding factor? Next you'll be touting muzzle energy and/or energy transfer. Oh, wait...
You've run right down the checklist in this post:
1. Appeal to authorities who supposedly support your contention but without any reference.
I don't have to. One of those authorities (DocGKR) is participating in this discussion. You too have listed no sources or evidence to support any of your claims other than to say that they're common sense.
2. Make broad-brush, inaccurate statements like "9mm offers the weakest barrier penetration" and ".45 offers outstanding barrier penetration."
Please read the link in my original post. Dr. Roberts covers this quite well. My statements are quite accurate and are addressed in Dr Roberts' articles. In addition, the article you're debating discusses testing that also bears this out as far back as 1988.
3. Argue against a straw man who favors the .357 for all purposes.
That word...I don't think it means what you think it means...
4. Appeal to the original authority being scrutinized (the FBI).
Their experts, who I have had the pleasure of working with numerous times in my twenty plus years as a police officer and firearms instructor, are exactly what I said they were: Experts. World renown experts who are sought after by law enforcement worldwide for their work in the field of terminal ballistics. I'm not talking about just their agents either. They employ medical doctors, ballistic scientists, and engineers in these evaluations.
How many times has the FBI changed calibers and service weapons since that was written, by the way? They've gone from 10mm to 40, with 9 optional. They've gone from a failed S&W 10mm to Sig to Glock.
They change because they learn and adapt.
Have we really gotten to the point where we argue whether the .357 Magnum is more effective than the .38 Special? Goodness gracious. I don't carry a .357, and I'm not a .357 "fanboy," but this is ridiculous.
No one is arguing except you. The evidence clearly proves there's little to no difference in effectiveness and that evidence can be found in these forums with a search. Muzzle energy in service pistol ammo is not a measure of its wounding potential. You should read about sectional density, penetration and expansion. There's great info in the stickies here.
Unless, of course, you're a writer for Guns and Ammo. Those folks "know" that the .357 is better and have no need for science. :rolleyes:
In reality, I think a couple of things were going on:
1. No one wanted to discuss the .357 Magnum. They said they wanted to go to automatics IN THE ANALYSIS. Consequently, they excluded data that didn't fit their conclusion.
One of the Source Selection Criteria was for increased capacity over five and six shot weapons. Another was for improved terminal ballistics. Revolvers were never going to be adopted and that was a given from the outset because their capacity was the status quo. They included a revolver and a 9mm auto in the comparisons to show what they were trying to improve from. Capacity was a primary concern, as was terminal performance. I don't know why there's an issue here. The whole point of a selection process is to evaluate what you have, what you want and how you're going to get there. The FBI decides what priority the various criteria will occupy and can include or exclude whatever they please. Revolvers in any caliber were not going to be selected. It had nothing to do with what S&W or any other vendor wanted. The SSC was for high capacity, reliable, accurate guns with improved terminal ballistic performance over the current revolvers and 9mm pistols. Again, revolvers of any kind were out simply on capacity grounds. 9mm autos were out on (then) terminal performance grounds. Further, the 180 gr. 10mm subsonic round was developed specially with the input of the FBI before this testing process began. It was always going to be the round to beat and they were simply looking for a reliable platform to fire it from. Twenty one vendors expressed their interest, but only two could field a gun. Once the caliber was selected and the reliability of the guns was established, it came down to price. S&W came in with a better price than Colt because they chose to. It happens in government contracting every single day.
I know these things because I have participated in ammunition testing with the FBI.
2. Smith wanted everyone to switch. Smith was selling them guns at a deep discount as a "loss leader" (again, in the article). Do you think S&W wanted the FBI to tell other, smaller agencies, "Yeah, WE'RE switching, but YOUR current .357 wheelguns from S&W are just fine." Uh, no. That's why they call it a "loss leader." They wanted everyone to switch to automatics. Ironically, this benefited Glock far more than S&W simply because Glock made a better mousetrap.
So, the federal government availed itself of its right under law to demand the Lowest Price, Technically Available (LPTA) as outlined in the Source Selection Criteria (SSC) set forth in the contract? This is not the least bit surprising. Colt could have bid lower, but chose not to. Again, not the least bit surprising.
warpedcamshaft
02-01-12, 02:01
Nah...not hardly.
It's probably just the juxtaposition between your level of knowledge and mine that makes it seem that way to you....
Humility is the only certain defense against humiliation. ;)
Seems that you had already decided whatever I had to say was bullshit before you even understood what I was saying. Impolite, but whatever.
I'm trying to close the intellectual gap here and understand WHY a round with significantly more energy at the muzzle supposedly does not outperform another with significantly less. If someone can explain that in a way I can understand, that would be neat.
Well, since Dr. Roberts has told me I am wrong regarding a faster JHP producing a larger diameter wound in elastic structures than a slower JHP of equal size...
I am not going to get into questioning an institution or trying to slander an individual or anything, I will approach this from the technical aspect.
Yes, the 357 Magnum has more energy. It does do more work. Yet it expands to about the same diameter as a 38 SPL and penetrates about the same distance. We know this to be fact based on OIS's as well as gel tests. Real-world, and labs, back it up.
So what work does it do? Well...what is work?
The SI unit for work is the Joule. What is a Joule?
A Joule is (Kg x m^2)/ s^2
kilograms (amount moved) , meters (distance), second (time).
So, let us say that the 357 and the 38 both move the same amount of flesh the same distance. The 357 is going to move this flesh faster, since it is moving faster. I do not see how this can be denied or argued against.
If you notice, the smaller the value for "s" (the faster this happens), the more Joules are produced.
However, since tissue is elastic, and Dr. Roberts has refuted my hypothesis that faster projectiles at pistol velocity will cut larger holes than slower one's at pistol velocity, this energy is "wasted", as the threshold for tearing of tissue related to temporary cavity expansion is roughly 2000fps at projectile impact and above.
Thus, it is entirely possible for your 357 magnum to impact faster, do more work, and yet cause no more destruction than your 38 special.
To put it simpler, if I were to punch you 1/100th as hard as I could, and then punch you again 1/98th as hard as I could, I would have not damaged you any more or less with either strike, yet more work would have been done.
Tactics meaning poor tactics is responsible for much of the out come in the 1986 shootout. For example rather than waiting for Miami PD to arrive the agents chose to engage two heavily armed robbers on their own. Lets face it the FBI is great at a lot of things but their field agents have more in common with accountants than cops.
Pat
Actually, the decision to engage had more to do with them getting made during surveillance. Had they waited for marked units, Platt and Mattix would have escaped. The real limiting factor was that except for Agent Mireles, long guns were not immediately available, and some agents had removed their guns from their holsters and lost them in the crash - resulting in having to use j-frames to fight.
And your view of field agents is one looking through a soda straw. It largely depends on the violation and the agents background. Every LE agency has armed professionals who are switched on, and those who are going through the motions.
As for the OP, what does it really matter why the FBI chose .40? They have it downloaded to a reduced velocity so it's easier to qualify with. You're better off with 9mm because at least then you get two more rounds in each mag.
We can argue energy, wound ballistics, etc. all day. We will all never agree and in the end, ALL handguns are a poor choice when the threat is a human. Get the gun/caliber that you shoot well, and get some training. It's a waste of energy IMO to spend so much time focused on the least important aspect of a gunfight.
jmlshooter
02-01-12, 09:09
Question:
I'm not going to get into the MagSafe/Ball comparison that was posited earlier, because it's ludicrous, but:
Can we please compare what we understand the best modern .357 load to be with the best modern .38 special load?
I'm POSITIVE there are .38 special loads (+P or otherwise) that can perform equal to certain .357 Magnum loads. But can the "best" .38 keep up with the best .357 Magnum under the metrics DocGKR uses? Obviously, bullet weight is going to be an important variable, so we can't limit our choices to 125-grain, for example.
I understand DocGKR's message in the duty loads sticky to be: "Hey, with modern ammunition, handgun rounds of 9mm and up are all in the same effectiveness neighborhood." I hope I understood that correctly.
Neither .38 nor .357 is on his chart, so I wanted to know. If there were going to be a disparity, I would expect to find one there with modern ammunition (hypothesis).
Circling back to the original article that was posted, my confusion centered around the fact that the FBI just stated [paraphrasing, of course], "Well, .357 is too loud and recoils too much in comparison to the .38 to account for any real performance difference." It didn't seem like very good science to me. Maybe there was an entire body of science behind it that wasn't stated or cited in the article to support the conclusion ... I don't know.
Question:
I'm not going to get into the MagSafe/Ball comparison that was posited earlier, because it's ludicrous, but:
Can we please compare what we understand the best modern .357 load to be with the best modern .38 special load?
I'm POSITIVE there are .38 special loads (+P or otherwise) that can perform equal to certain .357 Magnum loads. But can the "best" .38 keep up with the best .357 Magnum under the metrics DocGKR uses? Obviously, bullet weight is going to be an important variable, so we can't limit our choices to 125-grain, for example.
I understand DocGKR's message in the duty loads sticky to be: "Hey, with modern ammunition, handgun rounds of 9mm and up are all in the same effectiveness neighborhood." I hope I understood that correctly.
Neither .38 nor .357 is on his chart, so I wanted to know. If there were going to be a disparity, I would expect to find one there with modern ammunition (hypothesis).
Circling back to the original article that was posted, my confusion centered around the fact that the FBI just stated [paraphrasing, of course], "Well, .357 is too loud and recoils too much in comparison to the .38 to account for any real performance difference." It didn't seem like very good science to me. Maybe there was an entire body of science behind it that wasn't stated or cited in the article to support the conclusion ... I don't know.
Out of a barrel over 4" 357 will do better than .38 special. No one is debating that.
But I think what is being said is duty/HD use there is no reason to:
1) to carry a 8" 357 revolver
2) use 357 in a snubby revolver
jmlshooter
02-01-12, 09:30
Out of a barrel over 4" 357 will do better than .38 special. No one is debating that.
But I think what is being said is duty/HD use there is no reason to:
1) to carry a 8" 357 revolver
2) use 357 in a snubby revolver
1. I'm not so sure no one is debating it.
2. The FBI didn't draw any such distinctions about barrel length.
TriumphRat675
02-01-12, 09:55
1. I'm not so sure no one is debating it.
Are you seriously suggesting that an 8" barreled-.357 magnum revolver might be a better duty/HD choice than a reliable modern high-capacity semiautomatic?
In other words, you believe that it is seriously open to debate whether a large, heavy, heavy-recoiling, long-barreled, low-capacity, hard-to-reload, hard-to-conceal, heavy-trigger-pull having revolver is or is not a better choice than a modern polymer, light, light(er) trigger, easier-to-qualify-on-and-shoot-well, double-or-triple-the-capacity-having, easy-to-conceal, fast-and-easy-to-reload gun because of some possible but so-far imaginary increase in terminal effectiveness?
Other than yourself, who is debating that?
Question:
Circling back to the original article that was posted, my confusion centered around the fact that the FBI just stated [paraphrasing, of course], "Well, .357 is too loud and recoils too much in comparison to the .38 to account for any real performance difference." It didn't seem like very good science to me. Maybe there was an entire body of science behind it that wasn't stated or cited in the article to support the conclusion ... I don't know.
I'm speculating on all this, but I'm going to put it out there:
I'm willing to bet that the FBI has reams of data on the performance of their recruits and agents with all kinds of weapons and ammunition. I'm also sure they have data on the performance of .357 mag rounds and .38 +p rounds in various lab tests in all kinds of medium and barrier combinations. This data probably showed that there was not a significant gain in performance with the .357 rounds. They can also compare the performance of their agents and trainees and agents with the various loads. I'm guessing that the qualification scores were lower for .357 than they were for the .38. In the minds of the document writers, the negligible gain in terminal effectiveness they measured was not worth the drop in scores that the increased recoil and blast of the .357 caused (again, I'm speculating). As a complete system, the .38 +p was a more effective combination according to their standards.
One further thing to consider was that there was a 9mm on the scene of the Miami shoot out. I believe Agent Dove fired his Smith auto and struck one of the perpetrators with a 9mm Winchester Silvertip round. It was theorized that had this round penetrated deeper it may have more rapidly incapacitated the perp. My understanding was that this round caused more panic on the FBIs part than the .38 rounds.
The writing was on the wall, American policing was moving toward the automatic and away from the revolver, but to what? If the 9mm wasn't going to get the job done, what would the FBI use? The days of the revolver were numbered and the FBI had to choose.
So they tested all kinds of stuff, including the 10mm. What they found is that the extra energy of a full house 10mm wasn't worth the increased recoil, blast, and wear & tear on guns (notice a trend here?). They finally concluded that the round that offered the best performance ballistically with manageable blast and recoil was the 10mm lite. They ordered a bunch of humongous S&W 1076 pistols and were really pleased with them selves. Then S&W put on their thinking caps and said "Hey, if all they want is a 180 gr at about 950 fps, we don't need to use that big ol'10mm case. We can shrink that down." The .40 S&W was born and swept the American law enforcement and civillian markets by storm. It was crazy.
(Please note I offer no resources for anything above, and most of it is raw conjecture and speculation. I'm going by my memories and many articles I read at the time, most in the gun press with it's 'sterling' reputation for accuracy. I'm fully open to correction.)
But the enduring trend here is that while MV and KE are higher on some loads, they don't actually lead to better terminal performance as measured by the FBI and similar protocols. Consider the 9mm vs .357 SIG, .40 S&W vs full house 10mm, and .38 +p vs .357 mag. In laboratory testing they are all roughly equal, so the increased velocity and KE has not yielded a significant gain in terminal effectiveness.
Since the bullet diameters are the same, it seems that you are still caught on the energy difference between the .357 and 38spec. The temporary cavity produced by handgun rounds does not affect the body like it does from rifle rounds. Both the 357 and 38 fire the same diameter bullets. So the only difference would be if one expanded or penetrated more than the other.
Actually, the decision to engage had more to do with them getting made during surveillance. Had they waited for marked units, Platt and Mattix would have escaped. The real limiting factor was that except for Agent Mireles, long guns were not immediately available, and some agents had removed their guns from their holsters and lost them in the crash - resulting in having to use j-frames to fight.
And your view of field agents is one looking through a soda straw. It largely depends on the violation and the agents background. Every LE agency has armed professionals who are switched on, and those who are going through the motions.
As for the OP, what does it really matter why the FBI chose .40? They have it downloaded to a reduced velocity so it's easier to qualify with. You're better off with 9mm because at least then you get two more rounds in each mag.
We can argue energy, wound ballistics, etc. all day. We will all never agree and in the end, ALL handguns are a poor choice when the threat is a human. Get the gun/caliber that you shoot well, and get some training. It's a waste of energy IMO to spend so much time focused on the least important aspect of a gunfight.
I am not LE, and I am not Military, but I have met LE and Military that I could best in every combat related category from hand to hand, to pistol, to carbine.
I have also met LE/Military who made me look like a child who found his father's .22 and could beat me senseless without trying.
To make a judgement across the entire spectrum based on one, or even one PERSON'S experience/experiences is fallacy.
Military and LE are people. As such, there is a bell-curve associated with their talents and abilities.
Again stating that I am neither, I think that ability to communicate, read people, diffuse situations, garner information without putting someone on the defensive, etc. are all vastly more important to 99% of a law officer's job than being able to run 50 paces and hit a grape-fruit with his Glock 19 in less than 2 seconds.
"The FBI didn't draw any such distinctions about barrel length."
Yes in essence they did, as the issue weapons were S&W K-frame M13's w/3" barrels and 2" J-frames--neither of which hold up to extensive .357 Mag use, are substantially harder to shoot well w/.357 Mag loads for most personnel, and which do not exhibit any major terminal advantages when using .357 Mag vs. .38 Sp +P as a result of the short barrel length.
"Again stating that I am neither, I think that ability to communicate, read people, diffuse situations, garner information without putting someone on the defensive, etc. are all vastly more important to 99% of a law officer's job than being able to run 50 paces and hit a grape-fruit with his Glock 19 in less than 2 seconds."
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT..............................until someone's life is on the line and you have to make that shot for real.
I'm not going to get into the MagSafe/Ball comparison that was posited earlier, because it's ludicrous
Who made such a comparison?
Perhaps you mighty try actually reading information instead of planning your next snotty retort.
You said:
I'm trying to close the intellectual gap here and understand WHY a round with significantly more energy at the muzzle supposedly does not outperform another with significantly less.
I gave you this example:
Magsafe 9mm 64 grain has a muzzle energy of 540 ft lbs.
Winchester .45 ACP 230 grain T series, has a muzzle energy of 396 Ft lb's.
I guess the Magsafe 9mm, supposedly outperforms the .45 SXT.
Where is the ball in my comparison?
Yes in essence they did, as the issue weapons were S&W K-frame M13's w/3" barrels and 2" J-frames--neither of which hold up to extensive .357 Mag use, are substantially harder to shoot well w/.357 Mag loads for most personnel, and which do not exhibit any major terminal advantages when using .357 Mag vs. .38 Sp +P as a result of the short barrel length.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT..............................until someone's life is on the line and you have to make that shot for real.
Agree, it's a total package of ultimately equal importance, but more emphasis is placed on human interaction vs. combat effectiveness.
Further, many an officer will go his entire career never firing a shot.
I do not think many will go their entire career never having to interact meaningfully with someone who is upset.
1. I'm not so sure no one is debating it.
2. The FBI didn't draw any such distinctions about barrel length.
Read Doc's thread on .380 vs 38spl back up guns. It discusses the .357 vs 38 question in short barrels.
So the FBI didn't cover exactly your question but did indirectly as Doc stated. But good testing has addressed .357 vs .38spl out of shorter barrel guns. Are you wanting to hear the FBI dropped the ball? Not sure why you keep beating that to death.
What is your goal, to find out if the FBI sucked at the tests or find out if a 357 can be more effective at wounding folks?
Agree, it's a total package of ultimately equal importance, but more emphasis is placed on human interaction vs. combat effectiveness.
Further, many an officer will go his entire career never firing a shot.
I do not think many will go their entire career never having to interact meaningfully with someone who is upset.
I always tell my recruits that police officers die for the following reasons:
1) They don't shoot well.
2) They don't drive well.
3) They don't fight well.
4) They don't know how to communicate well under excited conditions.
5) They fail to assess danger signs and do not respond violently enough, quick enough.
6) They abandon common sense.
On any given day, you never know which combination of things on this list will test you and at what level of intensity the test will come. Being the best at all of these things is impossible, but neglecting one is a disservice to self, citizens and teammates.
The .357 is more powerful than the .38 Special. We all know that. But the question is, when using duty loads does the .357 offer better terminal effects than the .38 to justify the added recoil and blast? The answer to that is no.
The .357 shoots the same diameter projectile a few hundred feet per second faster than the .38. But it does not shoot it fast enough for its temporary cavitation to have any measureable effect in the wounding. So now we have the same diameter bullet that expands the same and penetrates similar. Sounds to me like the extra blast and recoil is not a good trade off.
Where the .357 really shines over the .38 is with longer barrels and hunting loads. It will drive heavy bullets faster to give good penetration through game. But that is not what is wanted with a duty gun.
The .40 with its 180 grn projectile at 950 FPS seems to be the good middle ground for a duty gun. It fits in a small frame so everyone can get a good grip of it. It fires a heavy projectile at a reasonable velocity so it has good penetration and doesnt recoil too much. And lastly it is small enough that a modern handgun carries a good amount of ammunition.
jmlshooter
02-01-12, 12:11
I just wanted to have a good discussion about the data and methodology. Mission accomplished.
I'm not trying to argue or convince anyone that the FBI did anything wrong or that a person should carry one gun over another. I work with FBI from time to time; they're great. Love em.
I'm just exploring their motivations and thought process like the OP.
CarlosDJackal
02-01-12, 15:58
...Again stating that I am neither, I think that ability to communicate, read people, diffuse situations, garner information without putting someone on the defensive, etc. are all vastly more important to 99% of a law officer's job than being able to run 50 paces and hit a grape-fruit with his Glock 19 in less than 2 seconds.
Until you find yourself in that 1% in which someone's life is in immediate peril.
- Avoidance
- Deterrence
- De-escalation
There are times when the only way to de-escalate a situation is to put a well-placed shot into a determined attacker. I once had a fellow Deputy tell me I shouldn't bother carrying a handgun off duty. I asked him what should I do if some scumbag pulls a gun on me and tries to kill me. His response was, "That rarely happens!!" :jester:
By your logic, no non-LEO should even bother to own or carry a firearm for self-defense because they are not required by law to interact with criminal elements (unlike LEOs). This is like saying that I should stop carrying a spare tire because I haven't had a flat tire in more than 10-years!! :confused:
FBI FTU has killed entire forests of trees with ballistic information, and the rationale for their choices has been widely disseminated. Read, don't sit and make conjectures.
If you're talking about Miami 1986 and events there, if you haven't read the analysis by W. French Anderson (or credible equivalent), read it then return to the thread.
Alaskapopo
02-01-12, 18:07
I am not LE, and I am not Military, but I have met LE and Military that I could best in every combat related category from hand to hand, to pistol, to carbine.
I have also met LE/Military who made me look like a child who found his father's .22 and could beat me senseless without trying.
To make a judgement across the entire spectrum based on one, or even one PERSON'S experience/experiences is fallacy.
Military and LE are people. As such, there is a bell-curve associated with their talents and abilities.
Again stating that I am neither, I think that ability to communicate, read people, diffuse situations, garner information without putting someone on the defensive, etc. are all vastly more important to 99% of a law officer's job than being able to run 50 paces and hit a grape-fruit with his Glock 19 in less than 2 seconds.
That is true to a degree but there are some people you can't talk out of fighting and for those people you had better be up to the task. I explain it to my recruits this way. You use your computer every day to write reports and you may never have to use your gun in your career. However if your computer crashes and loses your work you may get pissed but if your firearm fails or your skills with it fail you your dead. Period. You plan for the worst, the unusal and you have a better chance of living longer.
Pat
jmlshooter
02-01-12, 19:42
I've read it, skintop. I don't think you're adding to the discussion.
The FBI does more research than anyone; yet, they made the wrong decision with the 10 and the Smith. If the methodology led them to a decision that they changed course on almost immediately, what does that say about the methodology?
Alaskapopo
02-01-12, 19:54
I've read it, skintop. I don't think you're adding to the discussion.
The FBI does more research than anyone; yet, they made the wrong decision with the 10 and the Smith. If the methodology led them to a decision that they changed course on almost immediately, what does that say about the methodology?
The theory was sound the execution was flawed. We did need deeper penetrating bullets however the 10mm Smith and Wesson 1076 was not the right answer.
Pat
jmlshooter
02-01-12, 20:11
I think that's right.
We needed better ammunition.
Until you find yourself in that 1% in which someone's life is in immediate peril.
- Avoidance
- Deterrence
- De-escalation
There are times when the only way to de-escalate a situation is to put a well-placed shot into a determined attacker. I once had a fellow Deputy tell me I shouldn't bother carrying a handgun off duty. I asked him what should I do if some scumbag pulls a gun on me and tries to kill me. His response was, "That rarely happens!!" :jester:
By your logic, no non-LEO should even bother to own or carry a firearm for self-defense because they are not required by law to interact with criminal elements (unlike LEOs). This is like saying that I should stop carrying a spare tire because I haven't had a flat tire in more than 10-years!! :confused:
I'm simply saying plenty cops aren't shooters, they are people-people (well, some of them), and that's how they pass interviews/get the job. The firearm on their belt is just something they lug around with them because it's required.
Sure, all cops should be fit, smart, polite, blah blah blah. They aren't all like that. Some are, but they are rare in my neck of the woods. Mostly state-troopers fit the bill, but I have seen a few of them limping around so bad the side of their shoe was worn out, not knowing what caliber their side-arm is, etc.
The sad truth remains that as human beings, it is VERY RARE that you will find a sample that is everything it should be. Especially when LE requires so many attributes to be "perfect" for the job.
Alaskapopo
02-01-12, 23:08
I'm simply saying plenty cops aren't shooters, they are people-people (well, some of them), and that's how they pass interviews/get the job. The firearm on their belt is just something they lug around with them because it's required.
Sure, all cops should be fit, smart, polite, blah blah blah. They aren't all like that. Some are, but they are rare in my neck of the woods. Mostly state-troopers fit the bill, but I have seen a few of them limping around so bad the side of their shoe was worn out, not knowing what caliber their side-arm is, etc.
The sad truth remains that as human beings, it is VERY RARE that you will find a sample that is everything it should be. Especially when LE requires so many attributes to be "perfect" for the job.
Frankly I could care less if my guys know what caliber their pistol is, so long as they know how to use it and more importantly when to use it.
As to fitness it is very important but its very hard to maintain in our line of work. We have a very sedentary job for the most part. We are usually behind the wheel or the desk. I recently lost 70 pounds through diet and excersize because I knew I had gotten too fat. It has not been easy and over the holidays I gained 10 pounds back so I can only claim 60 pounds lost and I need to take off 35 pounds still. My point is it is easy to throw stones until you have had to walk a day in the life of cop. Fitness is something that all of america is struggling with. Obesity is a huge problem right now and its only getting worse.
Frankly I could care less if my guys know what caliber their pistol is, so long as they know how to use it and more importantly when to use it.
As to fitness it is very important but its very hard to maintain in our line of work. We have a very sedentary job for the most part. We are usually behind the wheel or the desk. I recently lost 70 pounds through diet and excersize because I knew I had gotten too fat. It has not been easy and over the holidays I gained 10 pounds back so I can only claim 60 pounds lost and I need to take off 35 pounds still. My point is it is easy to throw stones until you have had to walk a day in the life of cop. Fitness is something that all of america is struggling with. Obesity is a huge problem right now and its only getting worse.
I am not throwing stones at cops. This did not start out as "us vs. you", so don't turn it into that. I am simply stating the FACT that officers do not use their firearms as often as their other methods of interacting with the public, and many view them as secondary in importance and behave so. That is all. That is it. No more.
Do you disagree? You are LE, you have experience with cops much more than I do, am I wrong?
I work in healthcare, which is often sedentary as well. You are right, it takes a lot of dedication to stay in shape when you work 12 hour night shifts. Again, not throwing stones, just responding to people who seem to indicate that cops who don't have perfectly well-rounded and honed abilities are "doing it wrong". Yes, they are, but there is also accounting for being HUMAN, too. Officers and management view people-skills as more important than firearms. This is why officers MIGHT qualify once a quarter at the most I have ever heard of unless they are HRT or something, yet there is no end to the training they receive in de-escalation, etc.
Is it right? No. I agree with you guys that it should be more well-rounded, however, that does not change that it is not.
Alaskapopo
02-02-12, 01:47
I am not throwing stones at cops. This did not start out as "us vs. you", so don't turn it into that. I am simply stating the FACT that officers do not use their firearms as often as their other methods of interacting with the public, and many view them as secondary in importance and behave so. That is all. That is it. No more.
Do you disagree? You are LE, you have experience with cops much more than I do, am I wrong?
I work in healthcare, which is often sedentary as well. You are right, it takes a lot of dedication to stay in shape when you work 12 hour night shifts. Again, not throwing stones, just responding to people who seem to indicate that cops who don't have perfectly well-rounded and honed abilities are "doing it wrong". Yes, they are, but there is also accounting for being HUMAN, too. Officers and management view people-skills as more important than firearms. This is why officers MIGHT qualify once a quarter at the most I have ever heard of unless they are HRT or something, yet there is no end to the training they receive in de-escalation, etc.
Is it right? No. I agree with you guys that it should be more well-rounded, however, that does not change that it is not.
I did not take offense to anything you said. Just pointing out some difficulties with being perfect as a LEO, some of which you seem to understand. As for training in verbal judo its a key skill but in this day an age with over 170 police officers killed in the line of duty last year, I believe now more than ever we need more officer safety training in firearms and defensive tactics. I hope to God none of my guys or myself ever gets into a gunfight. I also worry about what might happen if they did. I only get them to the range twice a year. Their skill is passable but not where I want it to be.
Pat
I think this thread has run it's course. What was supposed to be a history lesson for me regarding the 180gr .40 turned into a pissing match about the .357 to cops which could stir another hornet's nest. And speaking as an Officer I think it should just end there. Thanks to those who answered my question btw.
Generalpie
02-02-12, 03:58
I guess I can't argue that point.
One weird (at least to me) thing with the original ideal behind the testing and caliber change is that a lot of companies built projectiles to meet the standard. I believe that is the primary reason that there is very minimal performance differences from caliber to caliber in handguns now.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that in the Miami shootout that sorta started all this, one of the first shots was a fatal shot. It is a good (although with bad results) example that not everyone goes down easy. If one of the agents took a round like the 9mm that was a bit from Platt's heart he would have gotten a medal for continuing to fight on. Platt was a first class shit head but he did have a will to fight.
A determined man won't stop just because he has been hit with a round or two. All in all the new testing, etc has been a great advance to handgun performance all around. As is often the case in law enforcement, big advances in equipment or tactics come from blood on the ground.
I guess I can't argue that point.
One weird (at least to me) thing with the original ideal behind the testing and caliber change is that a lot of companies built projectiles to meet the standard. I believe that is the primary reason that there is very minimal performance differences from caliber to caliber in handguns now.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that in the Miami shootout that sorta started all this, one of the first shots was a fatal shot. It is a good (although with bad results) example that not everyone goes down easy. If one of the agents took a round like the 9mm that was a bit from Platt's heart he would have gotten a medal for continuing to fight on. Platt was a first class shit head but he did have a will to fight.
A determined man won't stop just because he has been hit with a round or two. All in all the new testing, etc has been a great advance to handgun performance all around. As is often the case in law enforcement, big advances in equipment or tactics come from blood on the ground.
I think we have hit a wall.
We have X amount of mass and X amount of energy for each handgun caliber.
We need to achieve 12-16" of penetration with the most expansion possible.
Use too light of a bullet, and expansion/penetration will not be optimal.
Use too heavy of a bullet, and the same will also occur.
Expand the projectile too large, and there is not enough energy to effect penetration.
Don't expand it enough, and you cheat yourself out of expansion that could be had simply for the sake of hitting whatever is behind your target.
So for each caliber, we have and "ideal" surface-area size that can be achieved and still allow for appropriate penetration.
Physics dictate that once we reach this "ideal" juncture, we can proceed no further.
We must now look for ways to MORE RELIABLY initiate expansion, MORE RELIABLY penetrate barriers and retain mass, etc.
However, by and large, I feel we have exhausted what can be done with a handgun projectile regarding stopping-power against bare flesh, and the point remains--stopping-power is only in the mind, or a CNS shot. Handguns are puny, rifles are a bit better, and a crew-served weapon is a much better guarantee, but we are where we are with the handgun projectile.
So pick your flavor, and drink-up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.