Need Info In Support Of The 9mm Cartridge

B

BradS

New member
I am preparing to submit my second request to the Chief for approval to carry the 9mm cart. on duty. The department currently allows only the .40cal. for duty application. In my previous submission, the Chief acknowledged that the caliber choice had not been reviewed for about 13 years and tasked the training officer to research the duty round.The training officer concluded that what ever round the officer could shoot the best is what he/she should carry.
The Chief rejected my request to carry the 9mm.
I realize that many people will disagree with my caliber selection and I don't wish to make this a caliber debate.
I am seeking information from LEO's and informed civilians in the pistol craft to help support my second request.
Lengthy policy research and such please submit via e-mail:showalterb@sbcglobal.net
Thanks
 
I think your best argument is ammo capacity and ability to carry more spare rounds on person. There is a reason the military went to the .223 round, it may be a small projectile but it allows them to carry alot more ammunition. I am with you and would prefer to use the 9mm over the .40, I find the .40 to be snappy and just generally shoot the 9mm better. I also have complete confidence in the 9mm.
 
Just a thought, but if you could tell us what his objection is to the 9mm folks may be able to make a better argument. I'm guessing from your post that he simply told you no, with no explanation but if there are any other details it would be helpful.
 
If you hunt around you'll find articles discussing a trend back to the 9mm that name several agencies that have made the switch, either as their issued weapon or an option. The reasons cited are mostly officer related - recoil control, accuracy, faster follow up shots, easier to train, etc - and, of course, ammo cost. I haven't seen capacity used as a reason to go with the 9mm since we switched from revolvers back in the 80's. And, since the .40s only give up a rounded or two compared to a 9mm it isn't much of an argument.

BradS- What's your reason for wanting to switch?
 
I'm not an LEO and I won't pretend to know how your chief thinks, but IMHO cost vs. practice might be a strong argument. If your agency pays for practice ammo, they can buy almost 50 percent more using 9mm. If the officers buy their own, allowing 9mm might encourage officers to train/practice more. I mostly shoot .45 Automatic and I reload, but I loosely follow prices for Winchester USA at Wal-Mart. The last I can remember, 100-round value packs of 9mm were just over $20 per box, and .40 S&W was up to almost $30 (which is what I used to pay for .45 Auto -- that's why I reload).
 
What do you mean by 9mm ?? You must carefully distinguish between the various loads when making a proposal !!
FMJ vs JHP
Standard pressure vs +P or +P+
95, 115, 124, 147 gr bullet
Jacketed or bonded or all copper bullet .
LE loads are often 124 bonded JHP and these perform very well .You should be able to get info from makers about these rounds.
 
Since the previous recommendation from the training officer was that individual officers should carry what they shoot best, maybe you should shoot your qualification course with the issued gun and ammo and then use the 9mm load and pistol you want to carry. Then submit a review of you score and time, if the 9mm does perform better for you.

If that doesn't help and you don't mind being a bit more forward, you could start using the good old liability argument. Essentially saying that the training officers recommendation was ignored, you presented a valid argument several times and now in the future the department could be held liable if your duty round fails. It's a bit of a reach, but most places are so concerned about liability they may just allow you to move forward with your new duty combination.

Be aware if you end up using liability, that it's a double edged sword in some ways. They could counter that your choice to carry 9mm and a different handgun that the standard issue is more of a liability or shifts liability to you rather than them.
 
Several of us at my agency have begun transitioning to 9mm's as well. (any 9mm or .40 Glock is approved for use, and Glock 22's are issued)

I personally shoot the 40's just fine, but I shoot 9mm even better. As far as terminal performance goes, I've only put deer or other animals down, but I would rate them equal if not give the 9mm a slight edge assuming the same types of bullets are being used (based on MY experience, and that is not remotely scientific in methods of documentation).
So, I see the benefits of the 9mm as being more shootable (more hits faster), more rounds in the magazine, and very similar terminal performance. The only real detractor that comes to mind is slightly less barrier penetration, but that will require some more experimentation before I completely make up my mind.

Simply put, I can't find anything that the .40 does that is so much better than a 9mm that it makes me prefer the .40.
 
Here is an interesting article I just found via google. Its written by a longterm detroit pd officer. He was on duty through multiple weapon and caliber changes and helped develop department practices. He compiled data from shootings and made a chart ranking each caliber's stopping ability based on a fixed set of criteria he came up with for a stop. The charts are divided by caliber and ammunition.
His data suggests that .40 and .45acp are only marginally more effective than 9mm. And the margin is small enough he finds it neglible. All 3 calibers had stopping rates in excess of 90% when the proper ammunition was used.

http://neiassociates.org/caliber.htm
 
I would go to the website of whatever brand ammo you use (atk.le has quite a few) and pull the ballistic info from there. For +p 9mm ammo in most LE brands, the difference in 40 is negligible. It's empirical data; the chief may still reject it but he won't be able to deny it.
 
Here is an interesting article I just found via google. Its written by a longterm detroit pd officer. He was on duty through multiple weapon and caliber changes and helped develop department practices. He compiled data from shootings and made a chart ranking each caliber's stopping ability based on a fixed set of criteria he came up with for a stop. The charts are divided by caliber and ammunition.
His data suggests that .40 and .45acp are only marginally more effective than 9mm. And the margin is small enough he finds it neglible. All 3 calibers had stopping rates in excess of 90% when the proper ammunition was used.
Click to expand...
Great article, too bad it's 15 years old. I doubt few, if any, of those loads are even available in those configurations any more. Also, due to the age of the info, no current chief is going to even bother to look at it.
 
One of the best online sources for terminal ballistic data in modern loadings can be found here: http://le.atk.com/. They have a number of documents of controlled testing by various police agencies which may be of benefit to you. http://le.atk.com/general/irl/woundballistics.aspx. Tests which included 9mm are found at:

http://le.atk.com/pdf/Ft_CollinsPoliceDpmt.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/AuroraPoliceDpmt.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/LosAngelesWBW.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/RiversideWBW.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/SantaClaraWBW.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/PierceCountyWorkshop.pdf
http://le.atk.com/pdf/PortlandWoundBallisticReport1.pdf

In addition to greater capacity and better controllability, you need to point out the improved terminal ballistics of modern hollow points, maybe focus on one or two rounds. That's where the links above may help.
 
I'm not an LEO and I won't pretend to know how your chief thinks, but IMHO cost vs. practice might be a strong argument.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Your department probably isn't going to listen much to data about ballistics, but like any beaurocracy, they will be influenced by things like cost-effectiveness and efficiency in training.
 
My reasoning for requesting the 9mm is less recoil,quicker follow up shots and better accuracy on my part. The department does not furnish practice ammo, so the cheaper cost of the 9mm would be a financial benefit for me.
The training officer mentioned a logistics problem with the department having to stock both .40 cal and 9mm, but I recommended that anyone that choose the 9mm would be required to furnish their own ammo for qualifying.
Officers had all been issued the H&K USP .40, but the Chief recently allowed the carry of other weapons if purchased by the Officer as long as they are .40cal., this negates the old argument of being able to share magazines in a fire fight.
 
Good luck with your request. I guess I'd be facing the same problem if I wanted to use anything but the ubiquitous, over here, 9mm. All's been said so far as for what to say to back up your request. What I find surprising is that they say it would be a problem to store .40 and 9mm. Is is that difficult to have two separate lockers? :confused:.
 
Brad,

What is your duty gun now? What 9mm do you have now? I ask because you can convert a Glock 40 to shoot 9mm for about $124 from lone wolf. Then you can do most of your practice with a 9mm in the same gun the switch back to 40 for duty.

I carried a H&K P2K or USP/C for the last 14 years with the USBP and shot the same gun in IDPA with duty ammo. My personal observation is that the Gen 4 Glock has half the muzzle flip of the H&K with the same ammo. That could solve your follow-up shot issue right there. I also noticed that the H&K also tends to torque to the left when firing.

It may be an option to solve your problems without trying to sway your Chief who may not be so inclined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top