FBI returns to the 9mm

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Sat May 14, 2016 10:24 pm

The Fish/Game Cops are deranged in Washington....No .22 centerfires, but according to the handgun rules, Larger than .24, and a four inch bbl....sounds like a 4" .25acp....

jeepnik · Post by **jeepnik** » Sun May 15, 2016 11:22 am

Griff wrote:There are 3 basic ways to conduct any "study". 1st, scientific, to analyze data then extrapolate a conclusion. Conclusions are either very evident, or the results are inconclusive. 2nd, comparative, where one lists the attributes, assigns numeric values, and calculates the differential between two or more "things". And lastly, the "gov't study", where one decides one wants an end result, and sets about justifying that result. Outright lies need to be obfuscated, and the better one is at that, the more "scientific" it might seem to the reader. The above study seems to fit in this category.

What was it that fellow said, "There are three types of lies. Lies, darned lies and statistics. Real world results are the only true measure of performance.

RJM52 · Post by **RJM52** » Mon May 16, 2016 6:26 am

Have no problem with using the 9mm in a LE role... The last ten years I was in the business and the five following years as a PI it was my caliber of choice in a pair of S&W 6906s. Most of my co-works carried Glock 19s.

What I do have a concern with however is the choice of ammo.

I with Dallas PD for 11 years. During that time we averaged 80 officer involved shootings a year. Calibers ranged from .380 ACP to .45 Colt. If you didn't carry the city issue .38 Special and 158 LSWC +P ammo you could carry anything you wanted to as long as it was not explosive or incendiary. I was a student of gunfights and read every report I could and if the opportunity arose talked to the officer involved. The only officers I know who changed guns or calibers were the ones who used .38 Special. The others who I personally talked to who had used .357 Magnum, 9mm, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .45 Colt and .45 ACP never changed. But 9 out of the ten I knew who used .38 Special, 8 158 LSWC +P and one 125 Nyclad HP all were dissatisfied with the performance of the rounds.

The .38 rounds in question ran a 158 grain bullet at 900-950 fps. And when the 9mm 147 grain subsonic came out my first comment was, now were have a 15 shot .38 Special...and so it proved to be.

So in the 1990s when the 9mm 147 failed LE ended up with the .40 S&W and now 20 years later we come full circle to back to the caliber that wasn't the problem in the first place...it was the VELOCITY. .35/9mm diameter bullets need VELOCITY and a lot of it to perform...not kill...but to perform. A .22 will kill but will it put an end to hostilities ASAP or get through a car door or windshield to put some one down asap...no.

And what the FBI just doesn't get is what happens in a lab isn't necessarily what is going to happen on the street. Street to them is their quint "anecdotal evidence"....fairy tails.

The .357 Magnum is a .35 and with a 125 grain JHP, no one complains... The .357 SIG is a .35 and with a 125 grain HP no one complains. 9mm +P and +P+ using 115-124 JHPs running 1200-1350 fps, no one complains... But my prediction is that no matter how fancy or technical the HP is on the "new" 147s as long as velocity is under 1000 fps the "new" ammo isn't going to be as effective as the lighter high speed HPs and only marginally more than the original 147s....

Bob

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:59 am

Several agencies using the HST 147s have had a significant number of "very few shot" stops assuming the rounds went into the right places. Half a dozen single shot or two shot incidents I can think of right away where center mass hits were made.

I prefer 124s, but the HST bullet design is a major improvement over the original Hydrashok.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Mon May 16, 2016 11:31 am

MrMurphy wrote:Several agencies using the HST 147s have had a significant number of "very few shot" stops assuming the rounds went into the right places. Half a dozen single shot or two shot incidents I can think of right away where center mass hits were made.

I prefer 124s, but the HST bullet design is a major improvement over the original Hydrashok.

MrMurphy TRY the 147's! I did. They actually seem to be milder in recoil, which equates to quicker follow-up shots and therefore the likelihood of more accurate shots when it really counts. I have tried 115's, 124's, and 147's of various types - I like the HST 147's the best in the diminutive 9 that I own. and as you say, they appear to do the job. No more experimentation for me.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Mon May 16, 2016 12:25 pm

RJM52 wrote:...S&W 6906s. Most of my co-works carried Glock 19s....

What I do have a concern with however is the choice of ammo.

...If you didn't carry the city issue .38 Special and 158 LSWC +P ammo you could carry anything you wanted to as long as it was not explosive or incendiary. I was a student of gunfights and read every report I could and if the opportunity arose talked to the officer involved. The only officers I know who changed guns or calibers were the ones who used .38 Special...when the 9mm 147 grain subsonic came out my first comment was, now were have a 15 shot .38 Special...and so it proved to be.

So in the 1990s when the 9mm 147 failed LE ended up with the .40 S&W and now 20 years later we come full circle to back to the caliber that wasn't the problem in the first place...it was the VELOCITY. .35/9mm diameter bullets need VELOCITY and a lot of it to perform...not kill...but to perform. A .22 will kill but will it put an end to hostilities ASAP or get through a car door or windshield to put some one down asap...no.

And what the FBI just doesn't get is what happens in a lab isn't necessarily what is going to happen on the street. Street to them is their quint "anecdotal evidence"....fairy tails.

Bob

Well chronicled, Bob. Like you, in the early 70's my Sheriff's Office only required.38 caliber / 9mm or larger, if you could qualify, and if you furnished your own ammo other than the .38 Special or .357 Magnum rounds that they would supply for practice and duty. I followed the shootings and did tests on junk car windows and doors and other media - water jugs, melons, a Second Chance ballistics vest, and quickly moved from the .38 to a SW Highway Patrolman .357, then a Colt Python, using those fast, lightweight Super Vels - for the reasons you stated. The 9's back then were underwhelming and their HP's were nothing to write home about, but they penetrated like the dickens in full sized guns.

Then, there was an incident where my .357 was employed. My ears rang after the incident, I couldn't hear the Sheriff giving orders unless I was up close, and for a week or more everybody sounded like they were lisping. That high speed damage from close vicinity muzzle blast behind a barrier.

Switching to the big .45 I enjoyed very low muzzle flash and blast for its power, and for me a more controllable type of recoil than the sharp flip of the high velocity .357's, even in that 6 inch barrel. I fell in love with the caliber and the 1911 platform, and it has been my favorite full size defense gun ever since.

Then later agencies - a larger Sheriff's Department only allowed certain calibers for uniformed duty assignments, changing from time to time as the FBI and Calif. Dept. of Justice changed their minds - 9mm, 45's, 9's and .40's. So in the midst of this, my rather large Calif. Sheriff's Department bought the belief that the Navy SEALs' 9mm subsonic was actually a superior round. Until they finally realized that this a special purpose round intended for well-aimed head shots of sentries using a silencer! I had no faith in this 9mm but likedd the S&W 5906 with its feel, stability, double action, and safety. But I carried my .45 in a briefcase and off duty.

Then they moved to the .45 - a stainless S&W 4509. It worked very well for me, and was popular with the officers; a good shooter. That was a great choice; almost as good as a 1911! The only problem with both Smith's was that the first shot was definitely different than the follow-up shots, but it kept people happy not having to see the hammer cocked back, I guess (Cocked and Locked, "Condition 1" as the Colonel said).

With a State agency, they issued a 9mm Glock, with the later option of your buying a .40 SW or a .45 ACP in the same pistol. The 9mm round had improved. The 9mm Glock, I am forced to admit, gave me the tightest rapid fire groups of any semi-auto thus far - that trigger reset thing. But I was never convinced that in a serious encounter, I would have the fine control to make that system work for me, because of the adrenaline factor. It worked on the range. And no safety. Regardless of their propaganda, I considered it less than safe for my purposes. Again in a briefcase in the trunk of the car and off duty, I carried my 1911 - I trusted it.

But now that Federal HST 147 grainer - that is one 9mm to reckon with, and had become my favorite high concealment choice. The tests I have seen don't lie, and as mentioned here, the results are starting to roll in.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Mon May 16, 2016 1:59 pm

Switching to the big .45 I enjoyed very low muzzle flash and blast for its power, and for me a more controllable type of recoil than the sharp flip of the high velocity .357's, even in that 6 inch barrel. I fell in love with the caliber and the 1911 platform, and it has been my favorite full size defense gun ever since.

Exactly why anything shoot in my house will be a standard pressure, 230gr 45acp....

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon May 16, 2016 3:06 pm

Several posters with the background to back it up have tried to elaborate on the doctrinal reasoning behind the choice of a 9mm. But it seems it keeps coming around to the bigger hole and shot placement argument. Both of which I consider fairly irrelevant in the scheme of things. The 9mm hardball will in fact penetrate barriers better than .45 ACP. That alone makes it "better" in today's scenarios. Add the ability of having more rounds, less weight, less recoil and higher hit probability and it completely negates the marginally greater energy and hole size. I know that for some this will not change, but as someone who may have to use one in less than ideal circumstances, I much prefer the barrier penetration and ability to lay down suppressive fire than any mythical stopping power of a magic bullet. And I'm in good company with the majority of the special operations community who is not shackled by politics or supposition but rather actual real time field experience in the worst parts of the world, including a special operations group who overwhelmingly requested it in lieu of a full on tactical 1911. And along those lines of defeating barriers I'll take the lighter faster fmj over any Gucci round. Shoot what you want, but most of the arguments I see here in favor of the .45 over a 9mm are fairly frivolous, and if you are giving advice to others who are less knowledgeable theres a responsibility implied since they may need to use that advice in defense of a life at some point, and IMO a 1911 in .45 is the last thing I would recommend out of all the choices we enjoy today and we have a responsibility to use objectivity and empirical data from the latest sources on the front lines to form opinions.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon May 16, 2016 4:26 pm

Having lived and hunted in CA, I also take some umbrage at calling it an anti-hunting state. While, you might be accurate on a population base, amongst those DFG guys I had occasion to both work with, and meet while I was hunting, they were both knowledgeable, and for the most part, PRO-hunting. At least all of the Enforcement guys, and quite of few of Phd's that make policy. But, any field of endeavor will have both types of folks in it. Politically, they're strangled with a Legislature that'd decidedly anti... and have to tread lightly. Dump SF and LA into the ocean with the rest of the trash, and you'd wind up with a VERY right-wing conservative state!

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon May 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Toss in the fact that Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Jim Smith and Jeff Gonzales (respectively, Delta, Delta, Delta, and SEAL) all at some point were high-round count 1911 .45 guys (the Delta guys, between three of them, probably have fired more .45 per man than any of us will ever see, much less shoot) with the option of highly customized individualized guns and on the spot armorer support...and all of them (except maybe Jim, but last time I talked to him I think he had a G19 on) have gone to 9mm's. Both for capacity and reliability, their 1911s became safe queens. I love mine, but I don't carry it on duty even though I have the option. My .45 Glock is shortly to be a 9mm Glock (issued) and having 56 rounds over 40 is a good thing in my job.

All pistol rounds suck to some degree, even a .44 Magnum can not definitely every single time 1-shot-stop someone (for that matter, I know of an incident not involving a perp on drugs or alcohol where four solid center mass observed hits from a 12 gauge 00 buck did not stop him, finally, a .40 to the head did).

I carry a pistol for surprise threats, if I know I'm going into a probable fight, I bring the AR from the truck (and/or the shotgun and the other AR for anyone else).

As to Glocks and under adrenalin......yes, they work. I came within about 2lb of trigger pressure from shooting a burglar on duty this year and I was on and off the trigger when I needed to. No ND, everything came out fine.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Mon May 16, 2016 5:19 pm

Ah yes. I've often longed for the days when the sight of a man with a rifle caused no more concern than a man with a briefcase does today. Professionally the pistol is for if the carbine goes down or no time for mag change. Personally it's to get me and mine to safety and a carbine. If I could go everywhere with a slung carbine I would.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon May 16, 2016 8:30 pm

Well, having had to, wrestling a guy into cuffs with a slung rifle is really not fun.

So yes, for the majority of our lower-threat stuff, the pistol is fine. If I KNOW i'm going into bad stuff (shootings, etc)....I almost always have the long gun handy.

Panzercat · Post by **Panzercat** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:52 pm

1911s can be double stack 9s too, you know?

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon May 16, 2016 10:20 pm

A guy I work with carries an STI 9mm. He's one of our very best shooters and can actually use that level of accuracy. 21 rounds in the gun, 17 in the spare. Only one spare. Mostly because getting STI's to run double stack 2011 9mm magazines right takes some tweaking.

Me? I'd take a G17 with a +2 plate (20 rounds) and two spare similarly set up mags, and still have $1k left over from what he spent. And I've never shot less than Expert (last qual was a 98/100, the three previous were 96 and one odd 92 in there somewhere). For our kind of work, the 17, or a VP9 or similar, makes a lot more sense.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Mon May 16, 2016 10:42 pm

Griff wrote:Having lived and hunted in CA, I also take some umbrage at calling it an anti-hunting state. While, you might be accurate on a population base, amongst those DFG guys I had occasion to both work with, and meet while I was hunting, they were both knowledgeable, and for the most part, PRO-hunting. At least all of the Enforcement guys, and quite of few of Phd's that make policy. But, any field of endeavor will have both types of folks in it. Politically, they're strangled with a Legislature that'd decidedly anti... and have to tread lightly. Dump SF and LA into the ocean with the rest of the trash, and you'd wind up with a VERY right-wing conservative state!

Yup. But so far, the San Andreas Fault has not been cooperating.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Tue May 17, 2016 6:39 am

Panzercat wrote:1911s can be double stack 9s too, you know?

At what wieght and reliability penalty?

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Tue May 17, 2016 6:46 am

MrMurphy wrote:Well, having had to, wrestling a guy into cuffs with a slung rifle is really not fun.

So yes, for the majority of our lower-threat stuff, the pistol is fine. If I KNOW i'm going into bad stuff (shootings, etc)....I almost always have the long gun handy.

I've become a big fan of the single point attached top rear of IBA/rig. Roll your shoulder under to move behind back, roll opposite shoulder to transition sides. But still prob not ideal when struggling with someone by yourself. Controlling epw with your buddies is a lot easier.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Tue May 17, 2016 12:58 pm

sore shoulder wrote:. Personally it's to get me and mine to safety and a carbine. If I could go everywhere with a slung carbine I would.

Kinda difficult when sitting in a pew, however.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Tue May 17, 2016 2:23 pm

JohndeFresno wrote:
sore shoulder wrote:. Personally it's to get me and mine to safety and a carbine. If I could go everywhere with a slung carbine I would.
Kinda difficult when sitting in a pew, however.

Can't be any worse than the front seat of a HMMV. Or a bus or plane.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Tue May 17, 2016 9:20 pm

Agreed. I've fit behind the steering wheel of a Humvee in full armor with an M4. Not for long and not comfortably, but I did. Same with a Tahoe.

For that matter, I've made a high speed entry into the cockpit of a C17 while screwing the muzzle into the pilot's ear, and that's a tight fit. Especially with 3 buddies coming in behind you just in case.

I am not a single point fan except for pure house-hit roles where it's just a leash. I had a M4 on a single point during an exercise in Germany and nearly turned a simulated casualty into a real one when my rifle unexpectedly flipped back around to the front and whacked him in the head. THankfully, he had a helmet on...... I use a VTAC.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Wed May 18, 2016 1:52 pm

I think the only thing worse than a HMMV in full kit is the web seating in a C130 with your ruck on your thighs.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Wed May 18, 2016 3:13 pm

MrMurphy wrote:

I am not a single point fan except for pure house-hit roles where it's just a leash. I had a M4 on a single point during an exercise in Germany and nearly turned a simulated casualty into a real one when my rifle unexpectedly flipped back around to the front and whacked him in the head. THankfully, he had a helmet on...... I use a VTAC.

Im curious where u had the single point attached on your kit. I've seen this happen when it was attached high on the strong side, but when its attached top center rear of kit to either a drag loop or molle loop it seems to want to stay in the rear. Other than that I like the blue force gear two point or a home made version of the vtac using an old alice ruck shoulder strap lower section.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Wed May 18, 2016 6:25 pm

Upper right shoulder, and attached at stock rear. Not a fan, but issued for that particular exercise. I ended going SAS style and keeping it sling less 90% of the time.

Used other singles since, still not a fan.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Wed May 18, 2016 7:17 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
MrMurphy wrote:I am not a single point fan except for pure house-hit roles where it's just a leash. I had a M4 on a single point during an exercise in Germany and nearly turned a simulated casualty into a real one when my rifle unexpectedly flipped back around to the front and whacked him in the head. THankfully, he had a helmet on...... I use a VTAC.
Im curious where u had the single point attached on your kit. I've seen this happen when it was attached high on the strong side, but when its attached top center rear of kit to either a drag loop or molle loop it seems to want to stay in the rear. Other than that I like the blue force gear two point or a home made version of the vtac using an old alice ruck shoulder strap lower section.
MrMurphy wrote:Upper right shoulder, and attached at stock rear. Not a fan, but issued for that particular exercise. I ended going SAS style and keeping it sling less 90% of the time.
Used other singles since, still not a fan.

All Greek. I didn't even like the sling that came on my M1. Except it came in handy in certain shooting positions... for carrying, not so much!

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Wed May 18, 2016 7:22 pm

Hmmm. Do the Geneva Convention rules about FMJ and other projectiles still apply? We only use FMJ on enemy combatants, because of some perceived need to be humane... but on our own citizens we have no such misguided notions?

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Wed May 18, 2016 7:51 pm

Griff wrote:Hmmm. Do the Geneva Convention rules about FMJ and other projectiles still apply? We only use FMJ on enemy combatants, because of some perceived need to be humane... but on our own citizens we have no such misguided notions?

Actually that is a Hague convention "rule" that we never officially signed on to. This is a very common misconception. However to keep the PC crowd happy we have been using the nomenclature OTM (open tip match). There is no legal rule or precedent preventing the use of hollow points.

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

guntar · Post by **guntar** » Thu May 19, 2016 6:53 am

I have been reading and listening to this debate over handgun stopping power for over 50 years. I am no gun fight expert, but I have shot a lot, hunted a lot, and have an engineer's approach to data analysis. These are the questions and conclusions I would like to ask/add:

1. I have no faith in handgun "stopping power" unless the brain or spine is hit. I have seen too many human-sized animals hit with powerful rifles in vital places live for a considerable time after being shot. In most cases (70 to 80%) they did not seem to be incapacitated in any way with a heart/lung shot. They bled out in a short time, usually less than a minute, but were not "stopped". Why would we expect a lower-powered handgun to do any better?

2. I don't understand the conclusion about needing more rounds because the LEO's only hit something 20% of the time. Isn't there a "time is of the essence" aspect to gun fights? If you are only going to get one hit out of five shots, doesn't the effect of that one hit become even more important? Or is the assumption that your chances of getting off 15 shots the same as your chance of getting off five?

3. It is not physically possible for a larger caliber bullet to penetrate the same distance as a smaller caliber bullet and not cause more permanent tissue damage. This assumes that you are comparing similar bullet types at similar velocities.

4. If velocity does not matter why is the 357 a better "stopper" than a 38?

5. Why have hunters who use handguns come to such different conclusions about bullet effectiveness than the folks looking at encounters between humans? Most of us who shoot game in the same size range as humans (100 to 300 lbs.) quickly realize that JHP bullets sometimes work great, sometimes not. I believe most of us settle on either JSP's or more likely a SWC design that is fairly heavy, or medium-weight for the caliber.

6. In hunting at least, size does matter. All else being equal, you will get a lot more DRT kills with a 44 magnum than you will with a 357 magnum, and probably even more with a 500 S&W (I just don't have any experience with one). Logically, why doesn't this carry over to humans?

7. It seems like the ability to hit in a point and shoot situation would be very important in a gun fight. Yet different people are more effective with one platform than another. While I love S&W double action revolvers, I am much faster and more accurate in a point and shoot exercise with a 1911-style autoloader. For others this might be reversed, or they might be better with a Glock or a Beretta, or whatever. Wouldn't it make more sense to give them a choice, and perhaps increase that 20% hit ratio? I do understand that logistics enters into this equation, and if that is the essence, rather than effectiveness, then just make it an economics study and be done with it. If I was putting my life on the line, I would be willing to pay the difference between the standard and the "platform" I was most confident in. I suspect a lot of officers would as well.

8. Military requirements, police requirements, and civilian requirements, in my opinion, are so different as to merit three entirely separate discussions regarding handgun effectiveness. There is, obviously, some overlap, but they really are very different situations and each merits its own discussion.

In conclusion, I want to repeat that I am not an experienced gunfighter, so some of my conclusions may overlook some vital factor. If so, let me know. I am still willing to learn.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu May 19, 2016 8:01 am

BlaineG wrote:
MrMurphy wrote:Why would he, they were carrying 9's when he was alive.......

This is not news, it has been coming for over a year.

The "Army SOC" elements carrying .40 Glocks were Delta Force (they went to 9mm due to supply), they got tired of having to rebuild 1911s every week or so.

Marine Recon went to Glock 19s, SEALs have gone to Glock 9's as well. With current JHP ammo, this is not anything unexpected, current 9mm JHP ammo performs as good as anything in the other calibers.
Well, Grasshopper, The Col. preferred .45acp launched from his favorite platform, not "Crunchentickers" in 9mm.....That is all I meant, but I think you knew that.

How did I miss this? Actually, the Col preferred Norma 10mm launched from a Bren Ten.

jdad · Post by **jdad** » Thu May 19, 2016 9:11 am

Went shooting with a local LEO several days ago and brought this subject up. Everyone , from department management to street cop, is looking forward to the eventual switch, from 40 to 9. He told me of a recent incident where an officer, I didn't ask if he was from his agency, Sheriff, or another local department, shot a suspect from about 10' with a 45. Hit the guy in the chest and it bounced off of his cell phone.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu May 19, 2016 11:20 am

sore shoulder wrote:
BlaineG wrote:
MrMurphy wrote:Why would he, they were carrying 9's when he was alive.......

This is not news, it has been coming for over a year.

The "Army SOC" elements carrying .40 Glocks were Delta Force (they went to 9mm due to supply), they got tired of having to rebuild 1911s every week or so.

Marine Recon went to Glock 19s, SEALs have gone to Glock 9's as well. With current JHP ammo, this is not anything unexpected, current 9mm JHP ammo performs as good as anything in the other calibers.
Well, Grasshopper, The Col. preferred .45acp launched from his favorite platform, not "Crunchentickers" in 9mm.....That is all I meant, but I think you knew that.
How did I miss this? Actually, the Col preferred Norma 10mm launched from a Bren Ten.

But, it's not what he carried everyday.....

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu May 19, 2016 11:47 am

BlaineG wrote:
sore shoulder wrote:
BlaineG wrote:
MrMurphy wrote:Why would he, they were carrying 9's when he was alive.......

This is not news, it has been coming for over a year.

The "Army SOC" elements carrying .40 Glocks were Delta Force (they went to 9mm due to supply), they got tired of having to rebuild 1911s every week or so.

Marine Recon went to Glock 19s, SEALs have gone to Glock 9's as well. With current JHP ammo, this is not anything unexpected, current 9mm JHP ammo performs as good as anything in the other calibers.
Well, Grasshopper, The Col. preferred .45acp launched from his favorite platform, not "Crunchentickers" in 9mm.....That is all I meant, but I think you knew that.
How did I miss this? Actually, the Col preferred Norma 10mm launched from a Bren Ten.
But, it's not what he carried everyday.....

Well no, he didn't carry it before he invented it.

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Thu May 19, 2016 12:32 pm

guntar wrote:I have been reading and listening to this debate over handgun stopping power for over 50 years. I am no gun fight expert, but I have shot a lot, hunted a lot, and have an engineer's approach to data analysis. These are the questions and conclusions I would like to ask/add...

Best post on the subject, without meandering to military applications and situations where one carries a rifle and has a backup team working in a planned operation.

FBI agents in most situations aren't toting carbines, nor will I in, say, a restaurant or church. Even if this was realistic within our communities and culture, it marks you as the first target for a gun-toting terrorist or loony. You are sitting there, the attacker has the advantage as they pick their time to quickly enter a room and spot you. This is the exact opposite of a planned military attack on an unsuspecting target.

The point of this thread, I thought, was relevant to points about the best caliber for everyday real-life defense situations, with a subtext of how it applies to most of us. There will probably never be a total agreement among proponents of "big and slow" and "small and fast," to name the two most common groups of opinion.

As for me, I am totally convinced through my tests, real anecdotal information from coworkers, friends and official sources, and online video and published tests over many years, that the .45 ACP pistol with certain modern ammo is the best truly portable defensive combination available for civilian self-defense against one or more attackers - if you can shoot it accurately, of course.

Latest test of a .45 ACP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWW2Y-IZpyE
- gel behind 4 ply denim, 13.75" penetration -
Now what was that, again, about a .45 not penetrating properly?? -
- .892" average expansion, with full retention of bullet (plus penetration through steel plate also shown). This is the Federal HST 230 standard pressure round; in fact, the one that I carry.

We can argue to the end of the universe about what one guy sez, or what a particular agency carries, but isn't it wise just to see for ourselves what accepted and accredited test media show? Some may consider modern hollowpoints as "designer bullets;" but didn't the black powder folks say that about that new-fangled smokeless stuff? Things do evolve with technology.

And for my purposes at least, when it is necessary to carry a more concealed firearm (e.g. pocket or ankle holster), the best option seems to be a lightweight tiny 9 with the latest ammo that has been demonstrably shown to penetrate and still reliably expand within the FBI parameters, such as the aforementioned HST offering. As mentioned, 13" in gel and .60 caliber expansion after 4 plies of sturdy denim seems to me to be a good way to deliver a payload, rather than a round that just zips through the target and continues on to wound who knows whom. And tests prove adequate penetration through steel plate, as per the FBI criteria. Again, I'm speaking about civilian or standard police type applications.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu May 19, 2016 1:47 pm

I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was FBI going to 9mm and why.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:03 pm

sore shoulder wrote:I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was FBI going to 9mm and why.

Nice sidestep.....

BTW, the Bren 10 Lasted about as long as a short pee on a hot griddle....One of the Col's rare failures.....

"The Bren Ten itself has long since languished on the ash heap of firearms history. Its creator, the living legend Jeff Cooper, wrote in his column in the April 2004 Guns & Ammo: “The Bren Ten was a concept of mine, and while I am not ashamed of it, I admit that this concept was not entirely sound.” The words had the ring of a eulogy."

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:12 pm

jdad wrote:...shot a suspect from about 10' with a 45. Hit the guy in the chest and it bounced off of his cell phone.

I'm guessin' there's a little more to the story than just that. I don't think an ordinary .45 round would just bounce off of an ordinary cell phone.

Panzercat · Post by **Panzercat** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:14 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
Panzercat wrote:1911s can be double stack 9s too, you know?
At what wieght and reliability penalty?

I thought this thread was about 9mm, not polymer pistol advocacy :p

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:16 pm

BlaineG wrote:
sore shoulder wrote:I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was FBI going to 9mm and why.
Nice sidestep..... BTW, the Bren 10 Lasted about as long as a short pee on a hot griddle....One of the Col's rare failures.....

His idea didn't fail. The platform failed, mostly due to a failure of the magazine manufacturer to deliver. Then the 1911 Delta elite couldn't handle the full power round. Glock saved it. Which brings me around to choices and power. The 10mm Glock is a way better choice than a .45 anything if your going pure power in a semi auto. 15+1 @ 750fpe and weighs less loaded than an empty 1911.

I will also add, I have a great deal of respect for Col Cooper and owe him many thanks for the years of reading. However, he was never a frontline combat soldier, and I disagree with many of his shooting philosophies (example: I find isosceles vastly superior to weaver). I also do not blame him for the inherent disconnect most officers suffer from what goes on in a rifle company. There, that oughta really stir things up.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:17 pm

Panzercat wrote:
sore shoulder wrote:
Panzercat wrote:1911s can be double stack 9s too, you know?
At what wieght and reliability penalty?
I thought this thread was about 9mm, not polymer pistol advocacy :p

It isn't. It also isn't about 1911 lack of reliability.

Panzercat · Post by **Panzercat** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:42 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
Panzercat wrote:
sore shoulder wrote:
Panzercat wrote:1911s can be double stack 9s too, you know?
At what wieght and reliability penalty?
I thought this thread was about 9mm, not polymer pistol advocacy :p
It isn't. It also isn't about 1911 lack of reliability.

Oh please. My last 1911 ran flawlessly hundreds of rounds without cleaning. Stop buying into that old trope or stop buying the wrong brands.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:42 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
BlaineG wrote:
sore shoulder wrote:I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was FBI going to 9mm and why.
Nice sidestep..... BTW, the Bren 10 Lasted about as long as a short pee on a hot griddle....One of the Col's rare failures.....
His idea didn't fail. The platform failed, mostly due to a failure of the magazine manufacturer to deliver. Then the 1911 Delta elite couldn't handle the full power round. Glock saved it. Which brings me around to choices and power. The 10mm Glock is a way better choice than a .45 anything if your going pure power in a semi auto. 15+1 @ 750fpe and weighs less loaded than an empty 1911.

I will also add, I have a great deal of respect for Col Cooper and owe him many thanks for the years of reading. However, he was never a frontline combat soldier, and I disagree with many of his shooting philosophies (example: I find isosceles vastly superior to weaver). I also do not blame him for the inherent disconnect most officers suffer from what goes on in a rifle company. There, that oughta really stir things up.

It was big of you to admit your errors....

Don't worry, an occasional Condition White is excusable....

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Thu May 19, 2016 3:01 pm

Panzercat wrote:
Oh please. My last 1911 ran flawlessly hundreds of rounds without cleaning. Stop buying into that old trope or stop buying the wrong brands.

Denial or naïveté. You could go through a pile of 100 1911's and not find one half as reliable as any Glock lol. Only hundreds? Glocks go tens of thousands my friend.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Thu May 19, 2016 3:29 pm

Agreed.....

The problem with 1911s is they've been produced for a century with widely varying tolerances. A Colt, Nighthawk, Wilson, higher-end Springfield, all will perform well. Despite some people's personal experiences with ONE GUN, I will not take a Para-Ordnance, Kimber and a few others without a lot of checking and testing. Because of a lot of very experienced people's experiences at the armorer/gunsmith level with a LOT of those guns.

Read pretty much anything and everything Hilton Yam has to say about 1911s. I'll wait..... and he loves them. But he also has a very specific opinion about using them these days.

Running 5-10,000 through a Glock or similar plastic pistol these days is not a big deal. The 1911 made waves when it shot 6k without a malfunction. Chuck Taylor has a 1985-issue Glock 17 with somewhere above 375,000 rounds through it without a malfunction attributable to the pistol (ammo is another story) with nothing replaced but springs the last I heard (early 2000s).

JohndeFresno · Post by **JohndeFresno** » Thu May 19, 2016 3:56 pm

MrMurphy wrote:...Read pretty much anything and everything Hilton Yam has to say about 1911s...

Looked him up. That is admittedly an eye-opener for me. I had some very minor work done to slick up my MK IV Series 70 1911, so maybe that accounts for my near perfect experiences with it.

But some stuff I saw has me looking more carefully at the 1911 platform now, vs. the Toy Story guns. Admittedly, I already love my polymer Smith. I might have to mark this all up, as well, to advances in technology.

Thanks for the relevant post.

tman · Post by **tman** » Thu May 19, 2016 4:06 pm

guntar wrote:I have been reading and listening to this debate over handgun stopping power for over 50 years. I am no gun fight expert, but I have shot a lot, hunted a lot, and have an engineer's approach to data analysis. These are the questions and conclusions I would like to ask/add:

1. I have no faith in handgun "stopping power" unless the brain or spine is hit. I have seen too many human-sized animals hit with powerful rifles in vital places live for a considerable time after being shot. In most cases (70 to 80%) they did not seem to be incapacitated in any way with a heart/lung shot. They bled out in a short time, usually less than a minute, but were not "stopped". Why would we expect a lower-powered handgun to do any better?

2. I don't understand the conclusion about needing more rounds because the LEO's only hit something 20% of the time. Isn't there a "time is of the essence" aspect to gun fights? If you are only going to get one hit out of five shots, doesn't the effect of that one hit become even more important? Or is the assumption that your chances of getting off 15 shots the same as your chance of getting off five?

3. It is not physically possible for a larger caliber bullet to penetrate the same distance as a smaller caliber bullet and not cause more permanent tissue damage. This assumes that you are comparing similar bullet types at similar velocities.

4. If velocity does not matter why is the 357 a better "stopper" than a 38?

5. Why have hunters who use handguns come to such different conclusions about bullet effectiveness than the folks looking at encounters between humans? Most of us who shoot game in the same size range as humans (100 to 300 lbs.) quickly realize that JHP bullets sometimes work great, sometimes not. I believe most of us settle on either JSP's or more likely a SWC design that is fairly heavy, or medium-weight for the caliber.

6. In hunting at least, size does matter. All else being equal, you will get a lot more DRT kills with a 44 magnum than you will with a 357 magnum, and probably even more with a 500 S&W (I just don't have any experience with one). Logically, why doesn't this carry over to humans?

7. It seems like the ability to hit in a point and shoot situation would be very important in a gun fight. Yet different people are more effective with one platform than another. While I love S&W double action revolvers, I am much faster and more accurate in a point and shoot exercise with a 1911-style autoloader. For others this might be reversed, or they might be better with a Glock or a Beretta, or whatever. Wouldn't it make more sense to give them a choice, and perhaps increase that 20% hit ratio? I do understand that logistics enters into this equation, and if that is the essence, rather than effectiveness, then just make it an economics study and be done with it. If I was putting my life on the line, I would be willing to pay the difference between the standard and the "platform" I was most confident in. I suspect a lot of officers would as well.

8. Military requirements, police requirements, and civilian requirements, in my opinion, are so different as to merit three entirely separate discussions regarding handgun effectiveness. There is, obviously, some overlap, but they really are very different situations and each merits its own discussion.

In conclusion, I want to repeat that I am not an experienced gunfighter, so some of my conclusions may overlook some vital factor. If so, let me know. I am still willing to learn.

If, ever, you get this figured out, please let the rest of us know. You can study human and animal kills forever and eventually come to the conclusion, that nobody really knows. Shoot enough deer with a 30-06, a cartridge more than powerful enough, some will say overkill, and you will witness different results. Sometimes they drop right there, some times they run 100 yards and bleed out, sometimes they live to next season. .22Lr have instantly killed thousands of people. People have been shot point blank with a 12 gauge shotgun and have recovered. All I can add is use an adequate caliber for what you intend to shoot, make your shot,shots count,and hope for the best. Good luck in your quest.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu May 19, 2016 4:10 pm

Read pretty much anything and everything Hilton Yam has to say about 1911s

WHAT!? You're going to stake your life on one man's opinion?

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Thu May 19, 2016 6:37 pm

At his level it's not opinion but scientific provable fact draw from experiences maintaining a issued fleet of hundreds of high quality 1911s. Along with observances from dozens of others. He's just been kind enough to write about it.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Thu May 19, 2016 8:01 pm

MrMurphy wrote:At his level it's not opinion but scientific provable fact draw from experiences maintaining a issued fleet of hundreds of high quality 1911s. Along with observances from dozens of others. He's just been kind enough to write about it.

Frank is a buddy...Notice the emojis....

Ok...here it is....(1)The fella does not like 1911s to begin with.....I'll draw my own conclusions from that..... (2) It's not scientific unless it's peer reviewed, and approved.
Having said that, I like Glocks. My first was a G36 that stovepiped every fifty rounds or so.
Glocks are just like every other gun.....some are good and some are not....all the Glock wizards will tell you how to change them from stock to useful for only a couple hundred in parts.....A nice, loose mil-spec is likely to run pretty good right out of the box. Anyone that depends on one to save their life will know about the weak spots and replace them every so often, needed or not....

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu May 19, 2016 9:18 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
Panzercat wrote:Oh please. My last 1911 ran flawlessly hundreds of rounds without cleaning. Stop buying into that old trope or stop buying the wrong brands.
Denial or naïveté. You could go through a pile of 100 1911's and not find one half as reliable as any Glock lol. Only hundreds? Glocks go tens of thousands my friend.

And yet, the 1911 is the ONLY pistol to pass the Army Ordnance Board tests without a failure... TWICE. In the 40+ years I've carried a 1911, I've seen a LOT of failures... but have experienced relatively few. And 99% of the failures were operator error, magazine issues (out of spec., etc.), or aftermarket add-ons that are of questionable value and/or poorly fitted. The 30 years I've carried my Combat Commander, which is lightly modified, has seen a few fail-to-feeds... and every one I can attribute to me or, pushing a particular magazine past its useable life.

If one doesn't know or been taught the proper way to operate a 1911, it's highly probable that one isn't going to like it...

But, this thread is about very concealable, light weight 9mms and the ammo to feed them for their optimal performance. A subject I know very about. But, it's been an interesting read anyway.

Off topic: Although I do wonder how that Federal "HST" 45Auto stacks up against the old, (relatively), Winchester "Black Talons".

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Thu May 19, 2016 9:34 pm

On Yam......

He loves 1911s. He custom builds 1911s. Look up 10-8 (the company), which he started, after doing enough custom guns that people asked him for parts (kind of like Wilson). But he's also realistic in that they're not for everyone, and these days, not really great for large agencies. They're a specialist's gun, someone willing and able to take the time to learn to make the gun run right. For the average guy who may just be issued one and not "into" guns.....plastic guns work better.

As to HST in .45......it's about 3 generations better than the Black Talon.

The Winchester Ranger SXT (Supreme Expansion Talon), an excellent load by itself, is the "2nd generation Black Talon". The HST has improvements over that, but both work well. I'd carry either without hesitation. I carried .45 Hydrashoks for years, switched to Golden Sabers due to availability.

Now I carry 230g Gold Dots, because they're issued. And in our last shooting they worked just fine.

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Thu May 19, 2016 9:35 pm

Griff wrote: All Greek. I didn't even like the sling that came on my M1. Except it came in handy in certain shooting positions... for carrying, not so much!

Theres quite a difference in the old school slings and todays slings. The ones used today keep the gun at the ready on your front side for the most part, you can drop the gun and it stays handy and ready, leaving your hands free for other tasks. Many variations on the theme, but the general idea is keeping the gun both tethered to you and ready to use without carrying the weight in your hands all the time.