Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Case Closed: FBI Says 9mm Is The Best Pistol Round

Where did you read that the FBI "artificially designed each load to perform the same?"




Travis

I love a nine, very accurate if rounds are tossed in a fire barrel. Most will have scraps hit the barrel when they go off.
Need 17 rounds to kill a BG on drugs but not until he does you in. you can make an ACP accurate but most nines are junk. Best I ever shot were the P38 and Luger for accuracy. Old Germain production.
Police can not handle recoil, had a White house security guy here with a Glock nine. He set a target at 10 yards and missed every shot. My friend Pete and I took the center out with his gun. He watched me take little targets out at 100 yards with my big bore but it scared him so bad he would not shoot it.
I would rather have a .22 then a .380 or nine.
Things start with the .45 and just get better.

Because they spec'd that bullets should penetrate at least 12" and no more than 18", and that penetration over 18" was a failure, or at least scored lower. The 70% miss rate as far as shooter accuracy goes is a little bit misleading, since, in my experience, LEO's with high capacity magazines will tend to fire more rounds as suppression fire at fleeting targets, such as targets that are difficult to see, like targets crouching behind a car or other cover. So, if 70% are misses, why limit the penetration requirement to 18" if so many bullets are going to be misses, anyway? Who knows if they extended the penetration limit to 20", 24", or unlimited, if the bullets with greater sectional density or weight would begin to show an advantage?

Wow. Read this GEM slowly, it prolongs the laughter

No. The report does not say that. The report says 12-18" is the amount of penetration needed to stop a threat. The range is based on a number of factors such as the size of an individual being shot, angle of bullet path, etc.

Nowhere in the report does it indicate penetration exceeding 18" is a "failure" or "scored lower."



I can't find anything misleading about hit percentages based on facts. The conclusion the FBI reached is that more bullets are better than less bullets if an officer finds himself in a gunfight.



Travis

I have got to meet this guy.




Travis

Right! I hope his next post includes just a tad bit more stupid....I hate seeing good talent go to waste

He is my favorite handgun writer.

Do you mind telling us about this experience you mentioned?

Don't you fellers know it's not nice to pick on retards? Shame on you all, you mean, mean people.

Calling him a retard is offensive to retarda

I'd love to see the video.

Well, we know he has a camera/can post pics, which puts him ahead of at least one other "expert".

He probably couldn't post (or take) a video because the" Whitehouse Security " operator needed to protect his identity.

Next time I'm there, I'm going to PM BFR. He has told me before I could come shoot with him.

I'll have a pic with him and you will all still be losers.




Travis

Epic.

The source mentioning that ammunition that penetrates greater than 18" is scored lower in the FBI's testing protocol is in this article:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol/FBI%20Ammunition%20Protocol.html

but after re-reading "Ammunition Test Results," Firearms Training Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, dated January 10, 1989, I'm not so sure the article is accurate. However, a paragraph in the FBI's 1989 report reads, "The comparison of bullet performance by volumetric measure is presented in three tables. The first displays the volumetric rankings of the bullets tested for each specific test. Two volumetric rankings are given. The "Max Volume" is the volumetric measure based on the total average penetration depth. The "18 Inch Adjusted Volume" is computed on penetration depth up to 18 inches, ignoring any penetration beyond that figure. Since the performance standards established by the FBI mandate penetration ranging from a minimum of 12 inches to a maximum of 18 inches, this figure compares the rounds relative to those standards and does not give weight to penetration beyond the established maximum."

The FBI, based on forensic analysis, determined that handgun ammunition need not penetrate further than 18" so they didn't measure any further. But what I was just pointing out as being ironic is that the FBI's recent report apparently looked at gelatin tests up to 18" and concluded that there "is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto." (I guess up to 18"). We really don't know if bullets of greater weight or higher sectional density would begin to demonstrate an advantage if measurements were carried further. I just thought is was ironic that the FBI's more recent report seems to say, "We looked at ammunition that was designed to performed the same, and determined that, therefore, all loadings of these calibers perform the same." (I say 'designed to perform the same' because of the similar performance results of ATK's and Winchester's current LE ammunition as listed on their websites.)

Maybe 18" is the total practical maximum required penetration against the human anatomy, but the FBI's insistence that the 9mm is the "end of the discussion" comes off a little conceited, or, at the very least, perhaps settling for the proverbial bullet that works well when everything goes right. I think there are a whole lotta dead guys that would dispute the line "handgun stopping power is a myth."

I used the FBI's 1989 report for a presentation when I became a firearms instructor later that year. I couldn't find a link to it on the Internet.

Regards,
T.J.

They essentially threw all that stuff from 1989 away.

The FBI is conceited but that doesn't mean I can find any fault with their more recent findings.

If you want to believe in one-stop shots and stopping power from 45's and .40, etc., feel free to.



Travis

No, I'm not suggesting that any handgun round reliably gives one-shot stops; just saying that the Bureau's reasoning seems to be somewhat circular, in that they generally look for penetration from 12"-18", and ignore (their word)anything exceeding that, then say, "Well, they all worked the same." Of course they did, because that's all they looked at.

Off topic a little bit, but it was interesting to re-read the 1989 report again. It was an evaluation of the ammunition then available, and found that, out of 40 rounds of each fired: only one 10mm round fired failed to penetrate more than 12"; two .45 (presumably ACP) rounds failed to penetrate more than 12"; 13 rounds of 9mm failed, noting that out of a 15-shot weapon, five would not have "performed as desired," and 13 of .38 (Special?) rounds also failed to penetrate 12". The Bureau only tested one load, so it was a very limited evaluation, but still, what a difference in todays ammo! No argument from me that things have improved, but I'm just not yet willing to go all-in for the 9mm.

Who knows what ammunition would have been developed if the Bureau said that 24" was the gold standard, to give an even more margin of error for when things don't go well, or to possibly accommodate longer-range shooting. Since I work in primarily rural areas, I would be interested to know if the 12"-18" penetration reportedly met by a lot of today's "premium" ammunition would still hold true for hits from 25-40 yards, not the 10 feet spec'd in the testing protocol.

Regards, and enjoy the weekend.

this is all silly, want a few dB lower use the .45, want more than 8 rounds use the 9mm want to hang out with Lynn Russel in a motel 6 use a .380, like the man said if your expecting trouble bring your rifle.