FBI Returning to 9mm

[Hershmeister]

Next up in 2025. Shift to 45!

[GlockSpock]

RE:   The posts above by FTE (... #48...) and CZ9 (...#49...)....

 

The number 49 post...

 

No... The ammo guys make out no matter what... Ammo consumption stays the same assuming personnel levels stay the same.... The gun manufacturers sell new guns to replace the old guns specified by the agency...

 

Always remember these truths: ... Not buyin somethin always saves money... Buying something new always costs money... It works at your house, my house, and the gubmt's house... It's a universal truth...

 

RE:  The "new pistola thing"...

I've got a Smith model 13 three inch heavy barrel... It was the "new" FBI gun in the late seventies... I like it a lot... I remember them changing from the Smith 13 to the 9mm, then settlin on the 40 after playin with the 10mm, now back to the 9mm... That's a change of 4 pistolas over the course of 35 years... About every nine years, someone gets paid... 

 

RE:... Where does the money for new gubmt purchases come from...?

The government never saves money, they spend money... Where do they get the money...?   From you and me of course...

 

The number 48 post...

 

RE:... As to the "detailed rationale" thing...

 Of course they gave a detailed rationale..It's a standard requirement that gubmt and most big businesses use to justify new purchases.... The "detailed rationale" was to bolster the specs narrowly enough to get the product they want to get... I used to make a pretty good livin providing "detailed rationale" for capital equipment and construction services contracts... That's how they do it... 

 

Think about it... It aint a conspiracy theory on my part as some have opined; it's a change from one caliber to another that is one mm different... .355 to .401.... The ballistics are strikingly similar...

 

Again; it ain't about a better pistola, it ain't about better "terminal ballistics", it ain't about "advances in bullet technology"; it's about someone gettin paid with your money...

 

Your mileage may vary... 

 

leroy

 

Maybe the ammo guys make out no matter what, and I'm not even necessarily arguing anything in regards to this switch to 9mm Luger from .40 S&W.Yes, buying new pistols costs money but so does maintaining old ones. Also, 9mm Luger ammo should cost less than .40 S&W I imagine. What if it could be shown to save money over the next 5 years by switching to the cheaper ammo, even if the upfront cost of buying the gun now seems more expensive. Heck, depending on what .40 S&W pistols they have, it is possible that they could be sold and Glock 17's be purchased for less than what the .40 S&W was sold for.

 

But what I was really arguing was that surely it can be understood how it goes both ways. Yes, I recognize that a lot of purchasing decisions, any contract work really, is done to better thyself and their friends. But all I was really looking for was affirmation that sometimes sticking with the old instead of embracing the new (better, cheaper, etc) can also be done to better thyself and their friends.

 

It would be like if I was a manager at a factory and kept buying incandescent bulbs because a friend owned a company that manufactured them. Sure, I could switch the LED's and save the company decent money because the LED's use 1/10th the power of the incandescent and would easily and assuredly pay for themselves. But I am bettering myself and my friend because instead of catching up to technology I am embracing the old at the expense of the company.

[FTE]

Pistols are not indestructible. Tell a cop that the only reason he gets a new duty gun every 10 years (it's actually been longer) is because of a payola scheme. See how fast his eyes roll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leroy]

CZ... Ya see the glass "half full"... I see the glass "half empty".... It's the difference between bein a grouchy old cynic (...me...) and being hopeful (...you...) that the bureaucrats will sometimes do the right thing...

 

FTE... As to the "Pistols are not indestructable" thing...

The idea that a LEO wears out a gun is laughable; to me, at least... I've probably burned as much powder as 95% of the people on this forum and in the police corps thru 1911's, Smith revolvers, and a myriad of single actions; lots of it with heavy handloads... I've never worn a pistol out, and i've never seen one worn out... In my particular case, ive never seen any degradation of accuracy nor reliability... I will grant that i've seen competition pistols get a bit loose and need a new barrel and bushin (...think 1911's here...)... Nothin more... 

 

Again... Your mileage may vary...

 

leroy the cynic

Edited November 10, 2015 by leroy

[E4 No More]

CZ... Ya see the glass "half full"... I see the glass "half empty".... It's the difference between bein a grouchy old cynic (...me...) and being hopeful (...you...) that the bureaucrats will sometimes do the right thing...

 

FTE... As to the "Pistols are not indestructable" thing...

The idea that a LEO wears out a gun is laughable; to me, at least... I've probably burned as much powder as 95% of the people on this forum and in the police corps thru 1911's, Smith revolvers, and a myriad of single actions; lots of it with heavy handloads... I've never worn a pistol out, and i've never seen one worn out... In my particular case, ive never seen any degradation of accuracy nor reliability... I will grant that i've seen competition pistols get a bit loose and need a new barrel and bushin (...think 1911's here...)... Nothin more... 

 

Again... Your mileage may vary...

 

leroy the cynic

It's the government that has no problems with spending our money. They don't need to actually have a worn-out gun to call it worn-out.

[GlockSpock]

CZ... Ya see the glass "half full"... I see the glass "half empty".... It's the difference between bein a grouchy old cynic (...me...) and being hopeful (...you...) that the bureaucrats will sometimes do the right thing...

 

FTE... As to the "Pistols are not indestructable" thing...

The idea that a LEO wears out a gun is laughable; to me, at least... I've probably burned as much powder as 95% of the people on this forum and in the police corps thru 1911's, Smith revolvers, and a myriad of single actions; lots of it with heavy handloads... I've never worn a pistol out, and i've never seen one worn out... In my particular case, ive never seen any degradation of accuracy nor reliability... I will grant that i've seen competition pistols get a bit loose and need a new barrel and bushin (...think 1911's here...)... Nothin more... 

 

Again... Your mileage may vary...

 

leroy the cynic

 

Sometimes they do. The more often do not, but sometimes they do. But you seem to be avoiding or denying the fact that sometimes staying with the status quo can also be helping themselves and their buddies out. I'm not arguing...simply conversing...

[mikegideon]

"American made" is a thin rope to walk. Sig, Glock, Beretta.....all American made friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My American made Glock had to go back for warranty work. My five Austrian Glocks didn't. Just throwing that out here.

[MacGyver]

The Sig P320 is a fine pistol, but if it wins the contract it's because someone at Sig Sauer has pictures of someone with a goat.

[FTE]

The Sig P320 is a fine pistol, but if it wins the contract it's because someone at Sig Sauer has pictures of someone with a goat.

Why is that pistol not a legitimate contender in your mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTE]

CZ... Ya see the glass "half full"... I see the glass "half empty".... It's the difference between bein a grouchy old cynic (...me...) and being hopeful (...you...) that the bureaucrats will sometimes do the right thing...

FTE... As to the "Pistols are not indestructable" thing...
The idea that a LEO wears out a gun is laughable; to me, at least... I've probably burned as much powder as 95% of the people on this forum and in the police corps thru 1911's, Smith revolvers, and a myriad of single actions; lots of it with heavy handloads... I've never worn a pistol out, and i've never seen one worn out... In my particular case, ive never seen any degradation of accuracy nor reliability... I will grant that i've seen competition pistols get a bit loose and need a new barrel and bushin (...think 1911's here...)... Nothin more...

Again... Your mileage may vary...

leroy the cynic

Yes, but you're pistols probably aren't getting wet in the rain, baked in the sun, drug through the dirt.....well, no reason to go on.

Projectile technology changes. Those that carry a gun for a living are smart to keep up. Some of you guys would have cops carrying revolvers with lead soft points...... ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacGyver]

Why is that pistol not a legitimate contender in your mind?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just can't see moving an entire agency to a platform that's less than a year old.

I'm all for innovation - but this platform doesn't have any of the reliability data of either the S&W or the Glock platforms yet.

[E4 No More]

I just can't see moving an entire agency to a platform that's less than a year old.

I'm all for innovation - but this platform doesn't have any of the reliability data of either the S&W or the Glock platforms yet.

I wouldn't say that's strictly correct. The P320 is a redesigned 250 sharing much of the same parts.

[MacGyver]

I wouldn't say that's strictly correct. The P320 is a redesigned 250 sharing much of the same parts.

I didn't know that.

 

I love the double strike capability of my old Walther P99.  I like that about the Sig P250, too.

 

I'm still going to stand by my earlier statement, though.  Without some real test data, I just can't see moving an entire agency over.  

[E4 No More]

I didn't know that.

 

I love the double strike capability of my old Walther P99.  I like that about the Sig, too.

 

I'm still going to stand by my earlier statement, though.  Without some real test data, I just can't see moving an entire agency over.  

The only reason that I know this is because I just bought a P320 a couple of months ago. I think that the barrel can't be shared. It takes the same mags and holsters and frames IIRC.

[FTE]

I just can't see moving an entire agency to a platform that's less than a year old.

I'm all for innovation - but this platform doesn't have any of the reliability data of either the S&W or the Glock platforms yet.

You mean like the military did with the 1911.....or the M16? ;)

Major agencies create their own reliability data through rigorous testing. They don't mine other people's data like you or I.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTE]

I didn't know that.

I love the double strike capability of my old Walther P99. I like that about the Sig, too.

I'm still going to stand by my earlier statement, though. Without some real test data, I just can't see moving an entire agency over.

The P320 doesn't have double strike capability. Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find a modern trainer that teaches to pull the trigger twice on a dud round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited November 10, 2015 by FTE

[MacGyver]

The P320 doesn't have double strike capability. Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find a modern trainer that teaches to pull the trigger twice on a dud round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going from memory, but I seemed to recall reading that at least in a DAO form, the P320 had second strike capability. (edit - on clarification, the P250 has a second strike capability, the P320 does not.)

 

Agreed on the practicality of that away from the range, though.  It's going to complicate any malfunction clearance tree you might dump it into.

[FTE]

I'm going from memory, but I seemed to recall reading that at least in a DAO form, the P320 had second strike capability.

Agreed on the practicality of that away from the range, though. It's going to complicate any malfunction clearance tree you might dump it into.

I'm going from the three sitting in my safe. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacGyver]

I'm going from the three sitting in my safe. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm.  I guess that is the case.  The P250 has second strike capability, the P320 does not.  I'm going to edit my post above accordingly.

[FTE]

Yeah, 250 is DAO. 320 is striker fired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East_TN_Patriot]

Yeah, read the military reports from when they adopted 9mm. It's one of the reasons they cited the 9mm. I should have said penetrates armor better than x and penetrates armor, glass, and metal better than x. No handgun caliber will penetrate modern II or III body armor, but that is not what was being discussed when the military adopted the 9mm, which was the context of the OP and my response.

Fair enough, and in defense of your point, a small and fast projectile is harder to stop than a big and slow projectile, but there is more to body armor than just catching a round.  Body armor also has to absorb the energy of the round and redistribute it effectively enough to prevent it from being transferred to the soft tissue of the wearer.  In that regard, a hard-hitting .45ACP is just as effective as a 9mm hitting body armor.  It's all a trade off.  This is why this whole 9mm vs .40 vs .45 debate is really a waste of time.  It's all about the energy of the projectile and how well it transfers that energy to the target.  The bullet weight advantage of a larger caliber is offset by the velocity of the 9mm.  Look at the gel tests of modern defensive ammo and you will see that the penetration and wound cavity tends to be very similar across the board.  

I'll also point out the classic case of shot placement versus bullet weight.  South Carolina Trooper Mark Coates was shot and killed on November 20, 1992 during a traffic stop.  Trooper Coates shot the perpetrator 5 out 6 times with his .357 magnum duty revolver, which included hitting the suspect in the arm shattering the bone just below the shoulder.  The perpetrator who was armed with one of those little North American Arms .22LR derringers returned fire shooting a single round using his off hand.  That round entered the officer's torso under his armpit, just above his ballistic vest.  Trooper Coates died on the side of the road while the suspect sits in a prison cell.  The argument that a big round will completely disable an attacker is BS.  It's simply not true.  It is all about shot placement.  The Coates shooting is proof positive that a single well-placed (or lucky) shot from a teeny short-barrel .22 is much more effective than 5 less-ideally placed shots from a .357 magnum.  

http://www.odmp.org/officer/420-trooper-mark-hunter-coates

Edited November 12, 2015 by East_TN_Patriot

[Sunfish]

What ever the FBI choses the operator must be smarter than the handgun is. Female field agents are the reason the 10mm was ditched. When those agents were loading up in 86 to confront two armed bank robbers they needed real firepower for primary weapons and handguns should have been secondary. The agents should not have even tried to arrest them.     

[ARO Matt]

 It is all about shot placement.  

 

This

[Patton]

Shot placement matters, but it is not all that matters. Truthfully, I own more 9mm and 38s than any other calibers, but I am comfortable carrying them because anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice or three times.

[musicman]

Shot placement is king. And at the range, I always hit that paper right between the eyes. But in real life, with adrenaline pumping and the threat moving, I doubt I can tag him in the eye every time. (I hope you are picking up on my sarcasm here) I feel pretty much all of the major calibers 9mm and above give a similar opportunity for incapacitation if the bullet goes where it needs to. More chances means more better, imho.

My first gun was a .40, and for years that's what I bought for defensive purposes. All of my M&Ps are .40s. I have had a change of mind on this over the past year (and not because of the FBI) and am moving to 9mm. Oh, and the cheaper ammo doesn't hurt! Edited November 15, 2015 by musicman