FBI brings back the 9mm

[Shush]

You don't need 17 bullets if your shot placement is good.

True. Actually, you only need 1 bullet if your shot placement is good. So is that what you carry? 1 bullet?

We practice and train with targets not shooting back. We don't do a lot of firing on the move. At the range, my 17th shot from 1 mag hits in the same critical center mass as my first shot. My 50th shot hits in the same critical center mass as my 1st shot. But research as well as statements from people having been involved in shootouts all state the same thing -- when it's for real - fine motor skills go on vacation when your ATP system kicks in.


And no, it's not "spray and pray". I train very diligently with every firearm I have at my disposal. Do you carry just the required number of magazines? Do you have more ammunition in your go bag or trunk? Do you only carry 3 rounds of ammo in your firearm (since most people follow the unwritten "2 to the chest, 1 to the head rule" ? Why do you carry more, if all you will ever need are 3? Or even just 1?

[unobserved]

I'm far from being a sniper with my G19 w/ the 12lb trigger, so I appreciate the extra capacity. I usually qualify in the 90s at the range, but I can never get the tight shot groups like a few folks do. I know, on the internet, everyone is a firearms qualified instructor and a Seal team 6 pistol sniper, but in reality, from what I've seen, most people are average shots.

With that said, with my 1911 in .45 I'm a much better shot, then with my dept. issued firearm, but I'm not authorized to carry it.

Not all of us get a choice on what firearm/caliber to carry, BUT if I did, I'd still go with my Glock 19, just with a regular trigger.

[IAM Rand]

If the FBI spent as much time training their people on whatever they carry instead of testing the ammo and guns then they wouldn't have to switch so often.

[nobodyjr]

True. Actually, you only need 1 bullet if your shot placement is good. So is that what you carry? 1 bullet?

We practice and train with targets not shooting back. We don't do a lot of firing on the move. At the range, my 17th shot from 1 mag hits in the same critical center mass as my first shot. My 50th shot hits in the same critical center mass as my 1st shot. But research as well as statements from people having been involved in shootouts all state the same thing -- when it's for real - fine motor skills go on vacation when your ATP system kicks in.


And no, it's not "spray and pray". I train very diligently with every firearm I have at my disposal. Do you carry just the required number of magazines? Do you have more ammunition in your go bag or trunk? Do you only carry 3 rounds of ammo in your firearm (since most people follow the unwritten "2 to the chest, 1 to the head rule" ? Why do you carry more, if all you will ever need are 3? Or even just 1?

There were some theories after the shift away from revolvers to semis that because officers had more rounds at their disposal, they did not pay as much attention to shot placement... thus hit ratios decreased as the # of rounds fired went up. It makes sense if you know you only get 6 + 12 more on your belt to do the job, you are going to be more careful about how much you shoot.

I'm not sure how much difference having 17 rounds vs 10-12 in your gun will make. Do I carry just 3? Do I want just 6? No, but at some point it's time to find cover and your front sight. Especially when you can carry more on your belt and most pistol gunfights are close range. I also carry a rifle and a shotgun.

[ET109]

As the 9mm has gotten better over the years so has most everything else. I have seen to many people that can shoot the 9mm better, mostly because of less recoil.
I wont argue witch is better for that reason.
My duty weapon is a .45 commander and my back up is a 9mm.
Last time I qualified I shot 98 with the 45 and 86 with the 9mm witch is less than half the size of the 45.

This mirrors most of my own thoughts on the subject. Everyone talks about how advancements have increased the utility of the 9mm. Fine, but it's not parity. The very advancements that make the 9mm more useful- particularly increased (more consistent) expansion- have done the same thing for other calibers. So, great, a 9mm can now expand to around a half-inch. A .45 can expand quite a bit better than that, however.

That said, 9mm brings plenty of other advantages to the table. I just don't buy the line I keep hearing that somehow 9mm have gotten better as if this technology only applies to that caliber.

[WillBrink]

This mirrors most of my own thoughts on the subject. Everyone talks about how advancements have increased the utility of the 9mm. Fine, but it's not parity. The very advancements that make the 9mm more useful- particularly increased (more consistent) expansion- have done the same thing for other calibers. So, great, a 9mm can now expand to around a half-inch. A .45 can expand quite a bit better than that, however.

That said, 9mm brings plenty of other advantages to the table. I just don't buy the line I keep hearing that somehow 9mm have gotten better as if this technology only applies to that caliber.

All true, but it has had the largest impact on the terminal performance of the 9mm making the differences between major duty calibers minimal at this point, and the advantages of increased capacity and lower recoil (and cost!) makes it a a solid choice.