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
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...
Better do some reading...Jerry Dove shot Platt...his partner Ben Grogan was the one who could not see...
Sorry but it was Jerry Dove that lost his glasses and couldn't see well without them. Yes Jerry Dove is the one that shot Platt.
Jerry Dove was the passenger and a fairly young guy. Ben Grogan was driving and a much older agent. When Ben skidded their car to a halt his glasses came off his face and were found under the brake peddle...
..and I have seen Paul's videos...not one of his better ones and I watch him all the time.
...like I said...go do some reading.
If you can not deal with reality, reality will deal with you....
" The collision knocked off Grogan's glasses, and there is speculation his vision was so bad that he was unable to see clearly enough to be effective (a claim disputed by the FBI's medical director, who stated that Grogan's vision was "not that bad"). Grogan is credited with landing the first hit of the gunfight, wounding Matix in the forearm as he leaned out of the Monte Carlo to fire the shotgun at Grogan and Dove."
As to the FBI's Medical Director's claim... In 1974 I worked as an intern for DEA in Boston. About 1990 I ran into one of the now retired agents at a gun show in Portsmith, NH and we ended up going out to lunch. The topic of the gun fight came up and this guy's best friend happeded to be...Ben Grogan.. And his statement to me was Ben's vision was so bad he was legally blind without his glasses. And if you look at the original FBI Training Video on the shooting, Grogan's supervisor said Ben could not see 10' without his glasses...
If you can not deal with reality, reality will deal with you....
I don't know if y'all will be able to see the vid but.....
357 sig vs IIIa soft armor in a lab setting
Where does it say what load was used? It's interesting but a lot less meaningful without knowing what bullet and what velocity.
On steel, the bullet type doesn't matter so much, other than harder bullets generally punch through better; mostly it's about high velocity. Soft armor is not that way though; bullet choice matters a lot. A hard cast can act different than a JHP, which can act different than a swaged lead plated bullet.
Poor tactics lost the fight in Miami . Not 9mm Silvertips.
Not to mention horrible marksmanship...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Ive shot thousands of rounds through various 40s, mostly Glock 22 and 23 models with a few Sig P226 and HK USP. No kb. No frame damage. I had one catastrophic failure with a glock 23. I broke the slide lock spring while firing, which allowed me to fire the remainder of my mag...... I racked the slide.....it fell off and hit the ground. But before we jump on glock or the 40 SW. I had shot numerous 9mms. I had again 1 catastrophic failure with a Sig 229 9mm. I broke the locking lug and the gun couldnt continue to fire. Unsure if a round had been chambered, i used a pallet to assist me in removing the slide. Also had 3 sig springs [bleep] the bed in less than a few thousand rounds using a 9mm. Things happen and good reminder to inspect your firearms.
To no one in particular, My agency is currently contemplating changing from the .40 to the 9...like many here, the rank and-file questioned the costs more than anything. Interestingly, the brass that wants the change said the difference in ammo costs was minimal and not a factor at all. But we only have 200 or so agents.
A quick query of the Hornady website lists their 135 +P Critical Duty 9mm (which I think is one of the FBI's choices) as having a muzzle velocity of 1110 fps and 369 foot pounds of energy form a 4" barrel.
Their 165 Critical Duty .40 is listed as having 1,175 fps and 506 foot pounds of energy from a 3" barrel.
In our case of being a federal, hence nationwide, agency, it just seems to me that an officer working in warm climates with confrontations with mostly lightly-clothed adversaries would not be as concerned about the two cartridges as someone who, for half the year, confronts adversaries typically wearing Carhartts over a wool or flannel shirt, maybe again over thermal underwear.
I'l take the extra 137 or so foot pounds of energy. It may not be a perfect comparison, but if that equates to, more or less, dropping an additional 137 pounds on a guys chest from a foot, in addition to the original 369 pounds that the 9 gave, that sounds good to me.
I am a firearms instructor, and I just haven't seen the issues of poor shooters really doing any better with a nine on a standard qual course. Competition is a whole different issue, where, like race cars, a tenth of a second may make a big difference, but I'd really hate to dumb-down the whole agency to accommodate the weaker shooters who don't have any personal interest in firearms anyway.
