Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FBI Switching to 9MM

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FBI Switching to 9MM

    Since the beginning of this year there were rumors that the FBI is going away from the .40Cal and going to the 9MM. I guess the rumor is true, the FBI is going back to 9MM.

    http://loadoutroom.com/12077/fbi-goi...comes-science/

    Today's 9MM is as good as today's .40Cal. I can agree with that. I know a few departments in the area I live in were heavy on the .40Cal years ago. In the last few years I have found out that these departments have allowed their officers to go back to 9MM and 1911s.

    What do you think about the FBI going back to the 9MM? Do you think departments will leave the 40 and go to a 9MM? What do you think of the 9MM and .40Cal?
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

    P.C. 832

    Glock and AR-15 Armor

  • #2
    I don't mind the 9mm one bit. My agency will only issue duty and training ammo in .40SW and .45ACP, though. I carried a subcompact 9mm as a detective for 7 years and the ammo was at my expense.
    I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.

    Douglas MacArthur

    Comment


    • #3
      I think overall going back to the 9 mm isn't a bad idea. I feel like there are people who shoot the .40 well, and there are people who can't hit the broadside of a barn with it. I think most people can fairly accurately shoot the 9 mm. If it increases accuracy and effectiveness in number of rounds on target the by all means. Will I be turning my .40 in? Not right now, but I am buying a 9 mm as a back up duty gun in case my Glock 22 goes down.

      Comment


      • #4
        The FBI just needs to get over themselves. Does no one realize it is not the gun, but the hand pulling the trigger. How many agencies out there will now change back to the 9 because the holy grail FBI is going back. What ever.
        Stupid has no color or race, everyone can participate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why can't they go back to the good ole daze

          Miami_Vice_Blues_Glass.jpg
          Stupid has no color or race, everyone can participate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by IAM Rand View Post
            Why can't they go back to the good ole daze...
            I love me some 10mm. I wish Glock would put out a G29S. An even smaller (than the G30S) single stack .45\10mm in an almost G19 proportioned package would make me even happier.
            Last edited by Carbonfiberfoot; 10-20-2014, 06:32 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Have you seen who the fbi is hiring these days? I bet they are switching too 9mm because they can't handle a .40

              Heck im shocked they still give fbi agents guns. It not like they do police work. ..

              Comment


              • #8
                The FBI's new round: Speer Gold Dot G2

                http://handgunplanet.com/news/first-...d-dot-g2-ammo/

                Comment


                • #9
                  I like the 9mm, or 45acp. Do not care for the 40. I do not shoot it as well as the others and I have had a few malfunctions that I did not have with the 9mm.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I grew up on the .40, carry a .40, and I'm heavily invested in the .40 as far as personal firearms go. I do think the difference between the three "major" calibers are probably negligible, and don't care much for a round debate. I've shot .40 so much I barely notice a difference in recoil between .40 and 9mm. I've seen quite a few people (not so much here) say the .40 cal is going to be phased out. I will say this, the .40 caliber is extremely popular in the northeast. In RI for example, nearly every agency carries the .40, and to the best of my knowledge nobody carries a 9mm. Personally carried handguns for duty are only authorized by one department here as far as I know, and I believe it has to be at least a .40 cal. Perhaps the rest of the country is not as enamored with the round as agencies up here are, but it will be quite a while for a major change to happen, whether thats a switch to 9mm or .45 acp. I don't see it happening, especially with how popular the Glock 22, 23, and 27 are as well.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Modern bullets have been developed to a point that today's 9mm offers loadings that are on par with .40 and even .45 in just about every category. Most medical studies and after action reports have offered very little, if any, conclusive evidence that .40 and .45 are, on a practical level, any more effective as a combat cartridge than 9mm. The hundredths of an inch difference in an expanded hollow point 9mm, 40, and 45 are very unlikely to be a determining factor in how fast a fight is ended, and even the 45 doesn't have any more "knockdown power" than a 9mm. But what you get with a 9 that you don't get with a larger caliber are larger magazines and very little recoil. All in all, I think it makes sense.
                      "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
                      -Chris Rock

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I carry a 9mm Glock daily. Only a couple times I had the irrational fear that my 9mm round wouldn't pack enough punch as opposed to the .40. Those irrational fears prompted me to do my own research, instead of buying into people's "you carry a 9? I don't trust it, all I trust is my .40 and that's all I'll ever carry."

                        Now all I tell them is if the 9mm isn't enough "stopping power" then shoot yourself in the leg with it and see how easily you just brush it off. With my 9mm I have high magazine capacity (15+1 in my Glock, another 15rd magazine in my pocket just in case SHTF big time), quicker follow up shots and a reliable round. Plus range time with my 9 is a lot cheaper than range time with a .40 or .45ACP.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If you're shooting gel blocks or what they simulate, a perfectly perpendicular soft tissue strike, there is no difference in the major calibers as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. When you do start to see a difference in real life shootings is when the round hits bone, particularly round bone such as the skull, strikes an upraised arm before hitting the torso (such as someone pointing a gun at you and you shoot through their forearm as you naturally focus on the gun), and striking heavy bone, such as a femur. My office is very busy with shootings and the general consensus is ideal circumstances make caliber largely irrelevant but most gun fights don't allow for ideal circumstances. Heavier bullets do better in non-ideal circumstances. They deflect less off of bone, they lose less punch going through a shoulder or arm before entering the torso, and they are not stopped as easily by heavy bone.

                          It is a trade off and remains so. Without argument, the 9mm offers less recoil which will reduce flinch reaction in inexperienced shooters, is cheaper to shoot, allows for more capacity, and is quite capable of stopping a threat. The .40 and .45 increase recoil, reduce capacity, increase split times, but have the capability of penetrating deeper and destroying more tissue in non-ideal hits.

                          There is also a difference in how long someone who's "stopped" continues to fight until the "stop" takes affect. Some cartridges just hit harder, and that provides an edge in both physical tissue damage and in psychological stops.

                          I, personally, feel uncomfortable with bullet weights under about 150 grains for duty use. This is, admittedly, somewhat arbitrary, and I do carry 130 grain in my backup. I am comfortable with the .40, the .357, and the .45. I would carry a 9 if required to and also believe it has its place in short barrel lightweight guns, but the .45 remains my first choice in a semi-auto duty weapon.
                          I miss you, Dave.
                          http://www.odmp.org/officer/20669-of...david-s.-moore

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CruiserClass
                            If you're shooting gel blocks or what they simulate, a perfectly perpendicular soft tissue strike, there is no difference in the major calibers as far as terminal ballistics are concerned. When you do start to see a difference in real life shootings is when the round hits bone, particularly round bone such as the skull, strikes an upraised arm before hitting the torso (such as someone pointing a gun at you and you shoot through their forearm as you naturally focus on the gun), and striking heavy bone, such as a femur. My office is very busy with shootings and the general consensus is ideal circumstances make caliber largely irrelevant but most gun fights don't allow for ideal circumstances. Heavier bullets do better in non-ideal circumstances. They deflect less off of bone, they lose less punch going through a shoulder or arm before entering the torso, and they are not stopped as easily by heavy bone.

                            It is a trade off and remains so. Without argument, the 9mm offers less recoil which will reduce flinch reaction in inexperienced shooters, is cheaper to shoot, allows for more capacity, and is quite capable of stopping a threat. The .40 and .45 increase recoil, reduce capacity, increase split times, but have the capability of penetrating deeper and destroying more tissue in non-ideal hits.

                            There is also a difference in how long someone who's "stopped" continues to fight until the "stop" takes affect. Some cartridges just hit harder, and that provides an edge in both physical tissue damage and in psychological stops.

                            I, personally, feel uncomfortable with bullet weights under about 150 grains for duty use. This is, admittedly, somewhat arbitrary, and I do carry 130 grain in my backup. I am comfortable with the .40, the .357, and the .45. I would carry a 9 if required to and also believe it has its place in short barrel lightweight guns, but the .45 remains my first choice in a semi-auto duty weapon.
                            CC,

                            Did you guys go to the Sig P227? I know that ISP did, I wasn't sure if you guys were following suit.

                            All very good points. I think the caliber debate is going to rage on for years until they come up with a pistol caliber that has the recoil and size of a 9mm and the terminal ballistics of rifle round. Until then, like you pointed out, there's a lot of variables that can happen in a shooting.

                            Say there's a department that issues 9mm. There's an OIS that goes really bad because the scumbag wasn't stopped after being hit multiple times, you can bet that there's going to be calls to go to a larger caliber. So this department goes to .45. Years later there's another OIS that goes bad, this time because the officer ran out of ammo and had to reload in the middle of the fight. There's going to be calls to go back to the 9mm for the larger capacity. Or maybe the department goes to .40, and an OIS goes bad due to a malfunction created by excessive wear on the officer's gun. There's going to be calls to go to the .45 or back down to the 9mm.

                            Me personally, I carry a M&P45. I wouldn't have a problem carrying a 9mm if I needed to or wanted a smaller gun. But I shoot the .45 well, and I know it can do some damage, so I'm cool with that.
                            Last edited by GangGreen712; 10-23-2014, 12:04 PM.
                            "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
                            -Chris Rock

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have carried a Glock 22 years and I am heavily invested in the 40. I have shoot 9 and 45 and I can say for myself that I shoot 9 and 45 better then the 40. I have a co-worker who shoots 9 in IDPA. He let me try his Glock 17 and M&P 9. I had a lot more control over the 9 then my 40. I have a tone 40 cal ammo and it would be a waist for me to switch to 9 right now. I get why a lot of agencies are going back to 9 or allowing officer going back to 9. Shot placement and recoil control.
                              "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- Winston Churchill

                              P.C. 832

                              Glock and AR-15 Armor

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6591 users online. 358 members and 6233 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X