Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns FBI 9MM:FOR THE WIMMINS....

So it begs the question, aside from the 2" of extra penetration during the FBI shooting (where the 9mm failed) and the 40 is SUCH a burden, why did half the known world go to the 40 in the first place, over a bullet? Once again government bureaucracy and feathermerchants rule the roost... BTW, Paul Harrell has a BUNCH of really good videos. I highly recommend him.

Old opinion, all pistols are underpowered and 9 will do exactly the same thing as a 40 as will a 45

Your usual position, but we’re talking people shooting not buffaloes, no 454’s are usually involved in civilian shootings

I have not seen TRexarms, I'll have to check him out. I like Garand Thumb, Larry Vickers Tactical and Warrior Poet Society.

Prior to 1994 our city PD issued Smith 65's loaded with 38+P+ ammo. The Deputies and county PD could carry anything they wanted as long as they could qualify with it. They furnished personal guns. In 1994 the City issued Smith 5906's in 9mm, the County and SO went to G22's in 40 S&W. The GSP has been all over the place. In 1994 they had Smith 686's and carried 357 ammo. They had a brief look at Smith 4506's, then G22's, then Glock basically gave them G37's in 45 GAP but no one liked them and they went to G17's in 9mm.

Since 1994 we've had 13 LE shootings, 7 with 9mm, 6 with 40 S&W. There were never more than 3 shots fired by any officer and all bad guys were DRT. There were no survivors and no difference in how quickly they went down.

Departments upgrade to new guns about every 10-15 years anyway, sometimes they make them last 20 years. The 5906 was discontinued and the M&P 9mm pistols our city tested didn't meet reliability standards so our city replaced their 20 year old Smiths with G17's in 2014. The SO changed to G17's last year and the county will when they buy new guns the next time.

Going from a G22 to a G17 didn't require any more training or even new holsters. Our Sheriff contacted numerous agencies around the country who had made the switch from 40 to 9mm and none of them could offer any evidence that the 9mm pistols were any less effective than what they'd been using. On paper the 40 looks better, but the end results are all that matter.

Good post, so I'll ask you this question; if there is no difference in effectiveness between the two rounds (except for the agreed upon fact of longevity, TWO (2) more rounds and cost although that is debatable using economies of scale (volume), why go through the expense of replacing all your weapons just because of the aforementioned reasons?

Why do they use the .357 SIG?

Overreaction. A bunch of FBI agents died or were badly wounded in a shootout with two bank robbers due mainly to the failure of a 1980s designed hollow point 9mm to penetrate through a perp's shoulder, all the way through his heart. Their first overreaction was to adopt the full house 10mm, not the .40 S&W. That was a flop, because so many couldn't shoot well with it. Then they toned it way down, and most of them could handle it, so someone came up with the idea of shortening the 10mm to fit in a 9mm pistol, while keeping the toned down 10mm power level.

They didn't jump directly from 9mm to .40 S&W.

The correct solution was to urge ammo makers to improve their 9mm bullet designs and powder charges using scientific testing, which is what happened anyway, thus shrinking the gap between .40 S&W and modern 9mm in terms of terminal performance potential.

[

More like FBI agents died in the shootout because none of them could hit [bleep] for shinola and it took one FBI guy with his arm half blowed off and a riot gun at point blank to terminate the perps. MB

Not directed at you CT, just a general statement for those following.....

Anyone reading this IS NOT in the 95%. And it's not 95%, it's more like 99.9999999%. Ben Stoeger, one of the two or three best shooters on the planet, has commented that it is easier to shoot accurately at speed with a 9mm than a .40.

A good shooter will shoot well with whatever you hand him. And he'll shoot better with a gun that recoils less.

We hit 2K rounds before cadets leave the academy .

So it begs the question, aside from the 2" of extra penetration during the FBI shooting (where the 9mm failed) and the 40 is SUCH a burden, why did half the known world go to the 40 in the first place, over a bullet? Once again government bureaucracy and feathermerchants rule the roost... BTW, Paul Harrell has a BUNCH of really good videos. I highly recommend him.

No idea, but I'm sure some government bureaucrat came up with the TOE>

Good post, so I'll ask you this question; if there is no difference in effectiveness between the two rounds (except for the agreed upon fact of longevity, TWO (2) more rounds and cost although that is debatable using economies of scale (volume), why go through the expense of replacing all your weapons just because of the aforementioned reasons?

Well almost . The FBI agent who had the 9mm had apparently poor eyesight and lost his glasses in the imbroglio so he couldn't see well. His one hit was that 9mm round that stopped short...