LEO vs. Military Tactics and the 9mm

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm one of a small number of officers in my department who has opted to carry the Glock 19 (Federal +P+ 115 grain JHP) instead of the G21. Before October of 2006 ,when my department went to issuing Glocks, I carried the Sig 220 or 245 for six years.

I like the 45acp, but I don't like the G21. And that includes the G21SF. Now all new hires are issued a G21SF only. They don't get a choice. So they learn to shoot that big old blocky auto or they get another job.:(

I like the smaller grip of the 19 and I do enjoy the ability to do fast and accurate shooting with the 9mm. And say what you will I like the fact that I carry FIFTY rounds on my person (my reloads are G17 magazines).

I also have a 12 gauge shotgun and an AR-15 in my car for heavy work. And if nothing else I can lay down supressive fire with my fifty tiny bullets while my fellow officers come to my rescue with their big old 45's.;)

I would rather carry a handgun that I have confidence in then the biggest baddest hand-howitzer on the block that I can't handle with skill.

By the way the ammo is issued to me so no lectures about how I should carry the 124 grain +P whatever. We have thousands of rounds of the 115grain +P+ in stock and ammo isn't cheap.
 
I guess I must of misunderstood your thread title since I dont see your intial point that ties it to your header?
 
Based on your "analysis", the best weapon for law enforcement should be a S&W revolver in .44SPL or .45LC........

....not that there's anything wrong with that.... :cool:
 
It wasnt designed for the shooter to double-tap, but to spray at the enemy.
Click to expand...
No military pistol field manual I have ever read has advocated use of a handgun for suppressive fire. Sidearms are a last resort, and you shoot to kill with them.
 
I personaly thing the 9mm is a poor choice for a handgun for LEO or the military. When i was in the Marines i would not carry the 9mm i would only carry the .45. I want to make a big hole. big holes mean bad things to the guy getting shot. even the 5.56 will make a hell of a hole at close range.
 
I'd have to disagree with both the spray-and-pray and double-tap comments regarding the military and handguns. Most of the military training I have run across with the Beretta for standard line troops is to put two rounds n the chest and follow it immediately with a third round to the head (I've heard it called a failure to stop drill).

In my (admittedly slim) experience, the doctrinal difference between military engagements and police engagements regarding handguns is the priority that the handgun recieves in self-defense.

In law-enforcement, it seems to me that the handgun is the primary defensive tool, while the rifle / shotgun / subgun is the fallback weapon. In the military, handguns generally take second place to the assault rifle or light machine gun. Basically, you transition to a handgun only if your primary weapon jams or you run out of ammo.

Now, depending on your rules of engagement, the military can be in situations where there is less concern for collateral damage than the LEO community, but in most of those situations a servicemember is much more likely to be using their primary weapon system for suppressive fire rather than their handgun (even assuming that they are issued one) After all, would you choose to fire a higher-felt-recoil weapon with 15 rounds of ammunition (and having two spare mags) or a lower-felt-recoil weapon with 30 rounds of ammunition (and 6 spare mags) and a greater chance of defeating soft cover?

The information I recall (I can't remember my source and I'm too lazy to try to find one to attribute it to) is that the U.S. military switched to the lighter, faster 9mm cartridge in order to make it easier for slighter-statured servicemembers to fire the weapon accurately. For at least the last 10 years, the U.S. Army has been fairly serious about being able to put rounds on target accurately (also laziness regarding sources, as I can speak from experience only to that point). It makes sense, at least to me, to use a lighter calibre round that more people can hit things with. I can only engage so many targets in a brief span of time. If the troops to my left and right are hitting what they aim at, that's less work for me, neh?

Of course, given my choice, I'd carry my Glock 29 subcompact in 10mm as my secondary rather than a beretta.
 
The double tap is a ridiculous notion. Police shoot until the threat is eliminated - no more and no less.

Plus under stress a lot more lead will be dispensed than the officer intended usually.

The military went to the 9mm Parabellum to conform with all the other NATO countries.
 
Sorry man, I think you have it all wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree. Comapring FMJ 9mm and military tactics to LEO is comparing apples and oranges. As for the 1911, yes I love mine, but I have not seen a box stock average 1911 work 100% in 20 years.

When i was in the Marines i would not carry the 9mm i would only carry the .45
Click to expand...

Really? When were you in and what did you do that allowed such a choice? 1986 is the last time I saw a 1911 when I was in.
 
I have not seen a box stock average 1911 work 100% in 20 years.
Click to expand...

I have not seen a stock 1911 fail to function out of the box in at least that long (except for guns from Auto Ordinance, which is less a firearms manufacturer than a paperweight distributor).

I would venture to say that 99% of the 1911 problems I have ever seen were caused by substandard gunsmithing. They work until you cause them not to work, usually.
 
I would also like to hear from njtrigger. He has been a member since 2006 and has over 150 posts. His previous posts don't seem to have that Troll quality. So how about it njtrigger. Any defense of you position?
 
Sorry guys; for reasons I won't go into, njtrigger won't be responding to this or any other thread here at TFL, and this one's run its course.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top