FBI Switch from .40 to 9mm - 9mm improvement

[JAKIII]

It's pretty clear that the folks on this forum do not simply agree with the report, are willing to share their objections, and are willing to point out some things that the FBI chose to leave out of the report.

I find the forum to be a good source for information, including news. Most members are very knowledgeable, good at sourcing out information and I've learned a lot over the years.

They also call bullshit when they see it.

[easyj]

I find the forum to be a good source for information, including news. Most members are very knowledgeable, good at sourcing out information and I've learned a lot over the years.

They also call bullshit when they see it.

I find the same with the answers to my question. The forum members seem to dismiss the switch. I didn't. I tried to make justification to abandon .40 or .45, but I cannot. As a matter of fact, I assumed that the FBI was happy with their switch to .40 caliber, as were many law enforcement agencies. I stopped hearing that LE was outgunned or they needed more firepower. Overall, I think the switch to .40 caliber was a good one, and was beneficial to LE and agents dealing with encounters. Yet, it seems that "other things" have compelled them to switch back to 9mm. I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this with open-minded and experienced firearms folks. Thank you.

[JenniferG]

I've been shooting firearms most of my life. Back in the 90s, when I started carrying a pistol, I chose larger calibers. We had magazine limits back then, so larger calibers made more sense. In addition, the FBI switched to .40 caliber because they needed a better round, and people took it seriously. I moved to .40 caliber, as a result. Now it seems that 9mm is king. I read the FBI's report their justification for the move. Many people seem to be able to echo the FBI's finding rather well, which is great, and I can do the same. A primary justification was the increase in effectiveness of the 9mm, due to improved bullet technology. Does anybody here know or recall what the most effective 9mm ammunition was back in 1997, and what it's performance was, when the FBI left the 9mm behind? I am trying to understand what type of 9mm bullet performance they deemed insufficient in 1997 and how that compares with the performance they deemed sufficient when they moved back to 9mm. I am looking for information like numbers and percentages for ballistic data and penetration, etc. I am not interested in discussing recoil, magazine capacity, ability to hit, etc. I already fully understand all of that from the FBI report.

Capacity pure and simple. Watch any Police video when any officer yells "GUN!" Then it's mag dump time. Cost figures into also. The government cornered the market on .40 back during the omao admin when it bought millions upon millions of rounds of .40 and all that ammo is sitting in a storage location/s around the country withheld from civilians.

[easyj]

Capacity pure and simple. Watch any Police video when any officer yells "GUN!" Then it's mag dump time. Cost figures into also. The government cornered the market on .40 back during the omao admin when it bought millions upon millions of rounds of .40 and all that ammo is sitting in a storage location/s around the country withheld from civilians.

From the report, it seems like that is all that matters, but what actually drove that change? I don't recall any complaints about the performance of .40 among LE, or an increase in special agents losing their lives due to not having enough rounds. From what I see, the move to .40 was very successful, and fulfilled all of the intended goals. It looks like they lost less agents. but I won't assume it was only due to the caliber change. I don't know why we have come to this point, but I remember way back when these high capacity 9mms came into fashion and neighborhood shootouts became mini war zones with people not aiming and doing the spray and pray thing. I know it's been belabored, but I can't help but notice that the two agents who actually died in the 1986 Miami shootout were the only ones shooting high capacity nines. This could just be coincidence, but of course the guys spraying bullets needed to be prioritized. I think it was stated that agents only hit with 30% of their shots now. I could see how bureaucrats would want the 70% of bullets potentially flying toward innocent bystanders to be of absolute minimal lethality.

[JAKIII]

Despite annual training/recertification, I would not presume that all LEOs at local, state and federal levels are competent marksmen... regardless of the caliber sidearm they carry.

[JenniferG]

The overwhelming issue has always been the same when it comes to gunfights. It isn't just the ammo, it isn't just the gun, it's the experienced shooter who is both fast and accurate. Shot placement is the number one factor in stopping an assailant. As was mentioned in another thread about 1911's the secret to fast and accurate is practice, practice, practice.

[Rural Ruger]

Didn't the FBI adopt the ten millimeter round and then abandon it shortly afterward several years ago?

More than "several", but yes. I'm thinking ~30 years ago now?

[Ecclectic Collector]

The FBI did indeed adopt the 10mm round...and almost immediately went to a reduced power loading. Around 1991 the .40 S&W was then introduced and the FBI dropped the 10mm like a hot potato. Problem with the 10mm was it recoiled too hard and also required a hefty sized grip on the gun, too much for many male and most female agents.

The current kerpuffle over 9mm replacing the .40 is supposedly over how much better the terminal performance of bullets today over the 1990s, but simple economics may also be a factor.

As for the infamous Miami massacre: the real lesson wasn't that the agents were undergunned, they were WAY under prepared and everything that could go wrong, did so in a massively bad way from the standpoint of the way the stop turned into a shootout.

Check out Paul Herrell's or any number of post shooting analysis of the shootout available thru Utube.

[gghbi]

Didn't the FBI adopt the ten millimeter round and then abandon it shortly afterward several years ago?

More than "several", but yes. I'm thinking ~30 years ago now?

That migration is where the 40 S&W came from. The 10 was just too much, so the 40 was developed to allow the bigger bullet in a smaller frame size. The return to 9 mm was a combination of cost, better quals, and improved projectiles as was already mentioned.

[Grizz2720]

I am led to come to the same conclusion, after reading the report, and reading about other problems the FBI has faced. I think report was worded to carefully to justify the decision. However, I now read many articles stating that 9mm is a better round than .40 caliber and .45, and the FBI report is cited to explain this. This justification of less recoil and, therefore, better shot placement is not new. I've been hearing that since the 90's. I completely agree that you should shoot a 9mm if you can't handle a .40, .45, .357 Sig, etc, but I just don't accept that there is no difference between the rounds or that all pistol rounds are equivalent. I find that absurd. If you read my original post, I asked a question, which has not been answered yet. I have posted a more general question about if anybody disagrees with the FBI switch back to 9mm, on another forum, and I got about 10 answers which simply cited what the FBI stated and that they agree with it. It's pretty clear that the folks on this forum do not simply agree with the report, are willing to share their objections, and are willing to point out some things that the FBI chose to leave out of the report.

This comes down to the bigger the hole the more the damage. If the 9mm was good why is the military going back to a caliber that starts with .4