[G26Raven]

Here's an article that I had not seen before (or at least don't recall seeing before) that also does not seem to have been posted here. Some interesting observations by a physician.

9mm vs. .40 Caliber - Article - POLICE Magazine

Not looking to start a caliber war (already done bad enough with tourniquets), just interesting food for thought.

 

[bmcgilvray]

This is a peculiar statement, found within the article.

"I believe the definition of stopping power for law enforcement should be a particular ammunition's effectiveness to render a person unable to offer resistance or remain a threat to the officer, an intended victim, or self."

Shoot a hole in 'em, by cracky! That'll render 'em unable to remain a threat to themselves.

 

[Brad426]

This is a peculiar statement, found within the article.

"I believe the definition of stopping power for law enforcement should be a particular ammunition's effectiveness to render a person unable to offer resistance or remain a threat to the officer, an intended victim, or self."

Shoot a hole in 'em, by cracky! That'll render 'em unable to remain a threat to themselves.

"Gonna jump? Pew! Nope, you gonna fall."

 

[Dave909]

All I really saw was "9mm is better cause more rounds and all". Nobody is going to argue that a handgun round isn't going to be some magical insta-death ray, there's a lot more to it. The article just argues the things most of us already know, hit the right spot/ballistics gel doesn't tell the whole story/etc. It's my true belief that the caliber change is more about cost than any real issue with not being able to use .40 effectively. We're talking about people that dumped the 10mm for the .40..so now they suddenly can't handle the caliber they years ago decided to use because the previous choice was too hard?

If my police department and the FBI can't handle the .40 caliber in factory loads, I question their ability to use their guns period.

 

[Struckat]

Interesting article. I like both calibers. The 9 is, well... but then the 40.....

I will google 9 vs 40 and get back to you.

 

[Dave909]

Interesting article. I like both calibers. The 9 is, well... but then the 40.....

I will google 9 vs 40 and get back to you.

We'll see you in about a decade, that'll be a long search. I personally think that if there were any real problems with .40, it would be in the G23 and others like it, which for at least a year you could go in and find shelves full of LEO trade ins. I'm not fond of higher caliber conversions on lower caliber frames, which is what the G23 is. And no matter what this article tries to argue for the 9mm, when you put an 9mm HST up against an Underwood .40, there's not going to be "little difference" in performance. That .40 is going to do better against every day barriers..you know, the kind that police face..every single time. Really all the 9mm diehards can ever come up with is round count and tiny guns. I like 9, I have plenty of them. But to say they're just as good as a high performance .40 ( I know, +p+ and all, wear your gun out prematurely to get more power if you want to), is just not based on any performance I've certainly seen.

 

[Struckat]

I really like my CZ P-06. I can load a wider variety of bullets and power ranges than a 9. I like how the 135s shoot with a stout charge. It's my only rail gun so it gets bedtime duty.
My 9s have their places like a pocket gun or my CZ 75 compact. All steel soft shooter. It is a little heavier than the 229 .357 but so much slimmer so it gets more saddle time.

Not sure why but the P-06 is more accurate for me, even though it's the same grip.
Right now I have it in my head that I will buy a P-09 in 40. The prices are good and feels good in hand. I don't have a full size semi so it will fill a hole in my lineup.

Then I will look into a lighter 9mm like a Rami because I don't need one.
Yes I have the CZ bug.

 

[Dave909]

I really like my CZ P-06. I can load a wider variety of bullets and power ranges than a 9. I like how the 135s shoot with a stout charge. It's my only rail gun so it gets bedtime duty.
My 9s have their places like a pocket gun or my CZ 75 compact. All steel soft shooter. It is a little heavier than the 229 .357 but so much slimmer so it gets more saddle time.

Not sure why but the P-06 is more accurate for me, even though it's the same grip.
Right now I have it in my head that I will buy a P-09 in 40. The prices are good and feels good in hand. I don't have a full size semi so it will fill a hole in my lineup.

Then I will look into a lighter 9mm like a Rami because I don't need one.
Yes I have the CZ bug.

It's a great bug to have.

 

[drmordo]

I've read a few articles about the FBI's shift to 9mm, and they prioritize penetration above all else. I get it - hit a bad guy's CNS and they will very, very likely go down.

Penetration is not so hard to find - as I described in another thread, .380 FMJ penetrates pretty dang well.

I'm not saying I disagree. Certainly the science I've seen supports the idea that reaching a BG's spine or heart is necessary for a one-shot-stop. If anything, I'm leaning towards FMJ in most guns, and bonded JHP in guns with a high velocity cartridge like a 9mm +p+, .357 SIG, .357 MAG, and maybe .40. Which, FWIW, also has me leaning towards carrying those high velocity cartridges as my primary sidearm.

Lately 9mm +P+ has been looking pretty dang good as a balance between a ferocious round and max capacity - which I strongly suspects mirrors the FBI's thoughts on the matter.

 

[2ndunamended]

I love the 9mm vs. anything debate. Further, .40 is a fantastic option.

We all shoot 9mm, .357 (.38), 10mm, .45 etc... .40 is a phenomenal round ballistically. Yes, it's a little hot for some limp wristers. But for people who don't make excuses, .40 is very good caliber without compromise. If you're willing to shoot a snappy caliber, you'll rarely be under-gunned with .40 in 2-legged self defense. Train with it and you'll be proficient.

If I lived in an urban rural area with high crime and black bear, and all I had as a .40, I'd walk around town with confidence.

(I'd carry a tourniquet just in case)

 

[maxwell97]

I don't think the logic is sound. Okay, enabling good hits is obviously critical, and the argument for 9mm seems to be that it does that via lower recoil and greater capacity. But a good hit requires more than just good shot placement, it also requires that the bullet continues on the path that shot placement started it on.

Momentum is the key here. Among other things, it's a measure of how difficult it is to change the path of a moving object. A 9mm might nip at the heels of .40 in terms of energy or expansion, but it lags behind substantially in momentum. Comparing 9mm vs .40 HST, using the numbers from Federal's website, the 9mm comes in at 78% of the momentum of the .40.

What that means is, when hitting anything hard - bone, auto glass, auto door - a 9mm is likely to deflect more, which can result in a poor hit (or no hit), even with good shot placement. That, to me, certainly seems more important than having 17 rounds instead of 15, which has no benefit at all until 15 rounds have already been fired.

So I guess the remaining argument is that officers shoot 9mm substantially better than .40. And that, to me, seems like a training issue, making the switch to 9mm a bandaid. If it isn't driven solely by ammo cost, which I suspect it is.

 

[farsidefan1]

I shot the Glock 23 for yrs.(over a decade). Then as age and medical problems intervened I became less capable, especially with followup shots with the .40 hence the switch to 9mm. In another 10 yrs or so if I'm still around I might be shooting a .22 :gah:. Hopefully my shot placement makes up for lamebutt bullets:image041::tomato:

 

[Dave909]

I shot the Glock 23 for yrs.(over a decade). Then as age and medical problems intervened I became less capable, especially with followup shots with the .40 hence the switch to 9mm. In another 10 yrs or so if I'm still around I might be shooting a .22 :gah:. Hopefully my shot placement makes up for lamebutt bullets:image041::tomato:

But yours is a legitimate reason to go down in caliber. FBI agents and LEO in general don't, at least not using the arguments they have so far. I mean, if you're going to go to the 9mm +p+ because ".40 is hard bro", guess what? Recoil-wise you're shooting a bleeping .40. I'm not even sure I buy the round count argument. Let's take the G17 and G22, which was the most common LEO sidearm for a while (may still be). In the G22, you're losing two..count 'em, two rounds. You're telling me that if a cop is in a situation where he or she has to empty a mag (and we'll even help the argument by placing said cop in this situation alone with no partner or backup being called/coming), that two more rounds are going to save the day? Talk about your determined attacker. And no, we're not going to let the "20 gang members suddenly pop out of nowhere and attack the lone cop" scenario come into play either, because it's as unrealistic (notice I didn't say can't happen) as the self defense crazy scenarios people use to argue high capacity for civilians.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying this "need" to go down to 9mm for these fully healthy and able bodied agents and cops out there chasing serial killers, gangs, bank robbers and what have you. These are people who carry guns for and train for going after and attacking bad guys, and they want to go down in power? Two extra little bullets are so important to their survival that they are willing to take less power, barrier penetration and damage potential to get them? Mmhmm, I see.

 

[AzQkr]

The feds were stung by and recognized that their agents had recoil issues and scores went down when they transitioned to the 10mm. That lesson, a mistake, hasn't been lost on them over the years. It's a very real issue with their agents overall performances, likely based on insufficient, incorrect [ or both ] training methodologies..

 

[Dave909]

The feds were stung by and recognized that their agents had recoil issues and scores went down when they transitioned to the 10mm. That lesson, a mistake, hasn't been lost on them over the years. It's a very real issue with their agents overall performances, likely based on insufficient, incorrect [ or both ] training methodologies..

That very well may be the problem, blame the caliber not the training.

 

[AzQkr]

That very well may be the problem, blame the caliber not the training.

We see quite a few ccw'ers who remark that they carry a 9 because they have better recoil control and thus better hits with the lesser recoiling calibers. What one should recognize is the fact that agents come in all sizes and physical strengths, just like ccw'ers.

 

[Dave909]

We see quite a few ccw'ers who remark that they carry a 9 because they have better recoil control and thus better hits with the lesser recoiling calibers. What one should recognize is the fact that agents come in all sizes and physical strengths, just like ccw'ers.

No argument there, but I would have to assume that these agents are using at the very least +p rounds and I just don't see the recoil being enough of a difference between that and a standard .40. Especially not out of a duty sized gun, so I still don't buy into being weaker=carry a weaker round. Now if we're talking 9 vs, say, 357 Sig or higher, then you start making me a believer and I completely understand. I don't know Az, I get your point and I generally agree with it. I'm just not really sure I agree for this particular example. It seems to me it's less the shooters and more the trainers/training program and the number crunchers that have more to do with it. *shrug* Don't know.

 

[AzQkr]

No argument there, but I would have to assume that these agents are using at the very least +p rounds and I just don't see the recoil being enough of a difference between that and a standard .40. Especially not out of a duty sized gun, so I still don't buy into being weaker=carry a weaker round. Now if we're talking 9 vs, say, 357 Sig or higher, then you start making me a believer and I completely understand. I don't know Az, I get your point and I generally agree with it. I'm just not really sure I agree for this particular example. It seems to me it's less the shooters and more the trainers/training program and the number crunchers that have more to do with it. *shrug* Don't know.

147 grain Speer Gold Dot G2 is reported to be their chosen load for their 9's. It's non +P.

 

[Dave909]

147 grain Speer Gold Dot G2 is reported to be their chosen load for their 9's. It's non +P.

I would have figured at least 135 grain. That's interesting.

 

[Doogie]

Actually the statistic I look at is the % of BG's who will stop fighting after being shot once with any caliber. That seems more relevant to me for day to day EDC. So, I focus on what I will be more inclined to carry first and then caliber second.