Jump to content
Ray Ray

Is 40S&W on life support?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Screwball said:

GRIZ, sorry... but some of your information is wrong.

The FBI officially adopted the 10mm in late 1989. S&W 10mms did not start being produced until 1990. H&K didn't produce a MP5 in 10mm or .40 until 1991. So, hard to work with guys in the 1980s using guns that weren't produced until the 1990s.

In regards to testing, if .45 was so applauded prior to 1986, how come it wasn't issued (even Thompsons were declared obsolete by that time)? Some agents were carrying semi-autos up through 1986, but after the shootout, the FBI allowed all agents to carry them (9mm SIGs) until their transition was complete (and also between the 1076 and Glock). It is weird, being 1911s were allowed for a lot of the early FBI years, in both .38 Super and .45.

In regards to revolvers used in the shootout, only one agent was allowed to carry .357 Magnum; McNeill (I'll have to check my books at home, but not 100% that he even loaded .357 Magnums). All other agents shooting revolvers were shooting .38 +P, including the two ankle guns and Mireles' revolver, who was the last agent to put rounds into the suspects. Mireles was carrying a 586, which is a .357 revolver, but loaded .38s per regulations. If you read Anderson's book on the shooting, there are a lot of personal accounts made by a few of the surviving agents that put it all into perspective... being "outgunned," "poor shot placement," and "calibers not doing the job." Mireles talks specifically about not carrying something that could result in his termination from the FBI.

I would also hesitate to say Mireles ended the fight... being Platt was probably bleeding out inside the car. Most doctors, looking at the 9mm wound that Dove is credited for, feel that if Platt surrendered right after that wound, and was rushed directly to the hospital... he still would have died. Mireles was probably running just on adrenaline, so nobody can fault him at emptying his revolver into the car, as he walked past his fellow agents, both injured and deceased.

In regards to the S&W 10mm series, I've yet to hear about or see cracked stainless 10mm frames, which is what all of them were built on. There were issues with the SIG style decockers, which were recalled (also were changes in the magazine followers during that time), but never was a widely accepted feature on Third Generation guns (these were most of the complaints, as well as a 9-shot stainless pistol not being the best for carrying in certain roles). I also wouldn't expect them getting the round counts of full power 10mm through them, moving to the lighter loading, and switching to SIG for a short period before going to the .40 Glocks in 1997... Owning a 1006, I'm definitely calling BS on that statement, as the S&W, while no longer supported by S&W, is known for taking true 10mm power like a champ. But if you have information that I haven't seen, by all means, share it.

The whole movement to 10mm was due to the results of 9mm in that shootout. Can't be cut any other way. When a slug stops short of a suspect's heart, even if it was a fatal shot (it was), and that person seriously injures three agents (another was slightly injured, and another was uninjured) and kills two... that is a problem.

At that time (mid-1980s), ammo technology wasn't what it is now. So a bigger bullet, with more energy (only mass and velocity are variables in that equation), was the solution. It was an identical solution back when the .38 didn't do the job against the Moros in the Philippines... which lead to the .45 ACP.

.40 works good for barricade penetration, so agencies will continue to use it. But if you look at wounds, 9mm (today) does a lot more closer to .40 or .45. All common handgun rounds are very similar with performance... stink. In actuality, the job of the handgun is to get you to a long gun. It is a compromise, you are losing cartridge effectiveness to gain the ability to carry it on your person. A .45/.40/10mm/9mm/.357/.38 isn't changing that... carry what you are comfortable with or what you are allowed/have to. The .40 discussion is always looked at using today's ammo, instead of what was available when it was originally introduced.

I like .40... because it is something different. I have two M&Ps in it (5" Pro and a Compact), as well as a SUB-2000 Gen 2 (takes the M&P magazines). If there is an ammo shortage, I'll still be able to get .40 when everyone is trying to stock up on 9mm or .45. So, yea... .40 sucks. Go get rid of those guns, and buy up .45. Try not to buy 9mm guns... those suck to, especially since I have a SIG P938 and S&W 642-1 converted for 9mm. I like carrying those, so help keep those two calibers in stock and buy .45.

Actually, I have a Glock 30S... so, the .45 now sucks, as well. Go with a .357 Magnum. Don't have any guns chambered in it. But stay away from .44 Magnum. Too little power... go .460 or .500 (seriously, .460 has a lot more versatility... as you can shoot .454 Casull and .45 Colt).

Whoa, some of your info is wron too. Let's get this straightened out.

I never said the FBI was using S&W 10mms when I first encountered them. The HRT guys I was working with carried Colt 1911 10mms.  The guns the guys had were in production.  I'm not imagining guns that weren't made yet.

As far as the 10mm MP5 I could be mistaken.  If it makes you feel better I'll take a hit for that.   But it wouldn't be unusual for an agency to request some prototypes well before they went into production.  Not a rare occurrence.  I saw SEALS with prototype S&W 59s in Vietnam in 68-69 (I think they use Hi Power magazines).  S&W also made stainless 59s for the Navy a few years before the 59 went into production.

The information I have in regards to the 45 coming out #1 in FBI testing is from several reliable sources including FBI Agents assigned to the Firearms Unit at Quantico.  I already told you why they didn't adopt it.  You think they would get money to adopt a "new" caliber that DOD was abandoning?

Yes, at one point FBI agents did carry 1911s.  But this went away for the rank and file agent.  HRT guys carried 1911s. Don't know if they still do.   I also agree with something Ayoob said once.  A 1911 might be the greatest combat handgun there is.  LEOs use handguns for threat management more that combat shooting.  A DA/SA, DAO, or striker fired semiautomatic is better for threat management and general issue to the troops.

You do have one important fact correct. The 9mm Silvertip penetrated through Platt's arm, into his chest, taking out a chunk of his brachial artery, and stopped about an inch short of his heart (thats from the autopsy report).  He was going to die from that.  The 9mm Silvertip was designed to be a rapidly expanding low penetration round.  It performed as it was designed.  If it continued to penetrate his heart it's total speculation on whether that would have stopped the fight. I've seen people shot through the heart fight for 30-60 seconds, run 100-200 yds, and then drop dead.  I know of a guy shot through the heart on 6th and 42nd in Manhattan, he ran a block over to 5th Avenue and dropped dead in front of the library.

Yeah, Mireles was using a 686.  Not the first time I made that error.  More importantly he was using 38s.  He was shooting Platt with it when Platt stopped fighting.  One can argue which of the dozen or so wounds Platt succumbed to but he stopped fighting after he was hit with a 38.

As for cracked frames on S&W 10mms Google "cracked 10mm frames".

Your comment about using your handgun to fight your way to your rifle I always find entertaining.  That sounds good from an instructor in a class you paid $1000 to attend.  Having a rifle for a fight makes sense.  Platt proved that. Nearly all LE and SD fights are right there, right now.  You don't have time to fight your way to a rifle.  The few seconds that transpire from start to finish don't allow time to "go for your rifle".  When it's over there is no need to go for your rifle.

You really need to get a 4" 357.  Most versatile handgun made IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Howard said:

I'm not sure why you are having issues with the phrase militarization of police.  There was no judgement here, neither pro nor con, it is just a fact.  I actually have no issues with it.  I was just commenting if police no longer need one gun that can "do it all"  it makes more sense to have a 9mm which they can probably control better since they also have fully automatic high powered weapons for those other situations.

Howard, you said "full militarization of police".  Having a long relationship with LE and the military the "full militarization of police" is way far from reality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maks, Im on in the neighborhood of my 5th P30 and a P2k thrown in, I haven't had that issue with any of them. What I HAVE noticed is it does take a bit for it to settle down and hit point of aim. Anywhere from 50 to 150 rounds. I would love to know how they predict where the pistol will shoot to instead of where it shoot out of the factory :o

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, High Exposure said:

Personally, when comparing what I see as acceptable self defense rounds (defined for my use as one that has adequate energy and penetration to be commonly accepted as able to incapacitate a human) I'd take a smaller and faster bullet that allows me to get more hits closer together in less time than a bigger slower bullet with longer split times and a larger grouping.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Your comment about using your handgun to fight your way to your rifle I always find entertaining.  That sounds good from an instructor in a class you paid $1000 to attend.  Having a rifle for a fight makes sense.  Platt proved that. Nearly all LE and SD fights are right there, right now.  You don't have time to fight your way to a rifle.  The few seconds that transpire from start to finish don't allow time to "go for your rifle".  When it's over there is no need to go for your rifle.

Your whole post is good Griz, but this, this is gold. I was trying to figure out the same way to say this, but it wasn't nearly as eloquent.

People who have never responded to immediate violence think they have time to do all these crazy things. Your lucky if you have time to blink, let alone fight your way to better gear. For 99.9% of deadly force encounters, if it ain't on you when the balloon goes up, it may as well be at the bottom of the ocean.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Your whole post is good Griz, but this, this is gold. I was trying to figure out the same way to say this, but it wasn't nearly as eloquent.

People who have never responded to immediate violence think they have time to do all these crazy things. Your lucky if you have time to blink, let alone fight your way to better gear. For 99.9% of deadly force encounters, if it ain't on you when the balloon goes up, it may as well be at the bottom of the ocean.

I always encouraged my people to take a long gun when they were going out on something that had the potential to escalate.  Not only for the firepower but the good guys having long guns increased the probability there would be no need for them.  

More than once I had a pair of bad guys with handguns surrender with no fight to 3 agents armed with a shotgun, subgun, and M4.  They said they didn't fight because they felt they couldn't win.

My favorite was a guy who looked at me with an AUG, threw up his hands and said "What's that you got? An AK 92?".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Whoa, some of your info is wron too. Let's get this straightened out.

I never said the FBI was using S&W 10mms when I first encountered them. The HRT guys I was working with carried Colt 1911 10mms.  The guns the guys had were in production.  I'm not imagining guns that weren't made yet.

As far as the 10mm MP5 I could be mistaken.  If it makes you feel better I'll take a hit for that.   But it wouldn't be unusual for an agency to request some prototypes well before they went into production.  Not a rare occurrence.  I saw SEALS with prototype S&W 59s in Vietnam in 68-69 (I think they use Hi Power magazines).  S&W also made stainless 59s for the Navy a few years before the 59 went into production.

The information I have in regards to the 45 coming out #1 in FBI testing is from several reliable sources including FBI Agents assigned to the Firearms Unit at Quantico.  I already told you why they didn't adopt it.  You think they would get money to adopt a "new" caliber that DOD was abandoning?

Yes, at one point FBI agents did carry 1911s.  But this went away for the rank and file agent.  HRT guys carried 1911s. Don't know if they still do.   I also agree with something Ayoob said once.  A 1911 might be the greatest combat handgun there is.  LEOs use handguns for threat management more that combat shooting.  A DA/SA, DAO, or striker fired semiautomatic is better for threat management and general issue to the troops.

You do have one important fact correct. The 9mm Silvertip penetrated through Platt's arm, into his chest, taking out a chunk of his brachial artery, and stopped about an inch short of his heart (thats from the autopsy report).  He was going to die from that.  The 9mm Silvertip was designed to be a rapidly expanding low penetration round.  It performed as it was designed.  If it continued to penetrate his heart it's total speculation on whether that would have stopped the fight. I've seen people shot through the heart fight for 30-60 seconds, run 100-200 yds, and then drop dead.  I know of a guy shot through the heart on 6th and 42nd in Manhattan, he ran a block over to 5th Avenue and dropped dead in front of the library.

Yeah, Mireles was using a 686.  Not the first time I made that error.  More importantly he was using 38s.  He was shooting Platt with it when Platt stopped fighting.  One can argue which of the dozen or so wounds Platt succumbed to but he stopped fighting after he was hit with a 38.

As for cracked frames on S&W 10mms Google "cracked 10mm frames".

Your comment about using your handgun to fight your way to your rifle I always find entertaining.  That sounds good from an instructor in a class you paid $1000 to attend.  Having a rifle for a fight makes sense.  Platt proved that. Nearly all LE and SD fights are right there, right now.  You don't have time to fight your way to a rifle.  The few seconds that transpire from start to finish don't allow time to "go for your rifle".  When it's over there is no need to go for your rifle.

You really need to get a 4" 357.  Most versatile handgun made IMO.

Wow... I'd love to get this straightened out, but doubtful.

You can clearly read the parts of your post that I quoted... but to help you out. "I remember going on jobs with the FBI and some guys had 10mm S&Ws and 10mm MP5s in the mid 80s." So, maybe before you jump on your high-horse... reread your own post.

In regards to DoD switching to 9mm, why exactly would that argument hold water? Soldiers have very different needs than law enforcement. If it can't be proposed that way, maybe those trying to get funding need to get better information to bring to appropriation hearings... or they really didn't have the argument to warrant the move. But in any event, at the time the 10mm was adopted, the FBI viewed it as the best choice, even if marginally better than .45. Paraphrased, but you can look up John C Hall's report on their testing... and judging he was head of the Firearms Unit at Quantico during this time, I'd rather read his stuff than listen to your "sources." I mean you did just argue with me that you didn't say you worked with people carrying S&W 10mms in the mid-1980s, so no idea how valid your info is going to be (unless you just have short-term memory issues). At that time, they were making the best decision that they could... and they stated that. Just like they recently stated that 9mm is good now because of bullet technology, but also that if an agent is going to miss 70% to 80% of their rounds, more capacity in a 9mm means better end results. It is a different view because it is a different time. I rather see that than someone argue the .45 is the best caliber from 1980 to present... as they likely are just stuck in their ways.

And to be clear, Mireles had a 586... not a 686 (got it wrong again). I guess bleeding out isn't enough of a answer for you, but try to look for pictures of the back of Grogan's/Dove's car. He walked around the trunk as he shot Hanlon, and executed Grogan and Dove... maybe a few seconds. It looks as if someone gutted an animal across it. He was not moving as fast as earlier in the shootout, nor was he as actively shooting agents (Mireles was maybe 20 feet away, McNeill was lying right in the road). I guess if someone gets shot eight times in the chest with 9mm, a last .22 put into their arm shows that rimfire got the job done, if they died right after.

Just searched "cracked 10mm frames" and got what I expected. EAA Witness, 1911/Delta Elite, and Glock 20 on the first page. Continued on the second page to this... and more Witness, Delta Elite, and Glock links.

http://ar15armory.com/forums/topic/48325-sw-1006-cracked-frame/

Reading the posts, I doubt it is a common occurrence... especially that the OP has multiples of every S&W 10mm produced (even though the GunBroker listing is dead, the view was that it was not shooting related). So, how about you prove your claim? I shouldn't have to search for something I'm not likely going to find, because you have a different view. Prove your argument yourself. I know my 1006 will handle a crap ton of full powered 10mm loads.

Agreed with the rifle not being there, but to be completely honest, I'm tired of the pompous attitude. You're old, so you know everything... give me a break. I left that part of your post out, but age doesn't make you any wiser than someone who actually did the research into this event, and the surrounding change it created.  If you think your 4" .357 is going to stop every situation your going to be in, so be it. I live in reality, instead... but prefer a 6" .44 over that. I shot a 4" 686 when I was 12, and switched to the 629-1, when my father cut his hand open on it (he started shooting the 686 after that, and still has it). I still have the revolver (was given to me when I graduated college/transferred via permit when I got a few), and will always have it. .357 Magnum doesn't have the energy I'd want with the added recoil and muzzle flash. That's why I bought a .38 +P Airweight instead of any other .357 Magnum J-frame... and converted it to 9mm because of it being a better round than .38 +P.

I stated the rifle example not to have the idea that you should be going for a long gun. I state it to example the fact that individual handgun calibers (out of the common duty chamberings) are not going to be life and death. A handgun wound is not the best type of way to stop a thread, but we deal with it for the ability to carry it. A 9mm, .40, or .45 isn't changing that. If you read the sentences following that, you'd probably see that.

But I'm sure you will start arguing with me next that you never said Mireles had a 686...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 9:27 PM, GRIZ said:

I always encouraged my people to take a long gun when they were going out on something that had the potential to escalate.  Not only for the firepower but the good guys having long guns increased the probability there would be no need for them.  

More than once I had a pair of bad guys with handguns surrender with no fight to 3 agents armed with a shotgun, subgun, and M4.  They said they didn't fight because they felt they couldn't win.

My favorite was a guy who looked at me with an AUG, threw up his hands and said "What's that you got? An AK 92?".

Same here. If you are out looking for a fight - for example responding to a shots fired call or hunting for a legit bad dude - you bring the long guns with you whenever possible.

But the rest of the time, you dance with who ya brung and that's the pistol.

As far as purposefully carrying a less capable round in one weapon system because you have access to a "better" system elsewhere - that's planning to fail.

You load each weapon system with the best performing ammo you can get for the task at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny debate.

We have a cartridge that falls squarely in between a 9mm and .45 ACP in diameter, common bullet weight, and typical velocity.

-and yet-

The 9mm and 45 ACP are beyond reproach, while the 40 S&W is a pig.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Screwball said:

Wow... I'd love to get this straightened out, but doubtful.

You can clearly read the parts of your post that I quoted... but to help you out. "I remember going on jobs with the FBI and some guys had 10mm S&Ws and 10mm MP5s in the mid 80s." So, maybe before you jump on your high-horse... reread your own post.

In regards to DoD switching to 9mm, why exactly would that argument hold water? Soldiers have very different needs than law enforcement. If it can't be proposed that way, maybe those trying to get funding need to get better information to bring to appropriation hearings... or they really didn't have the argument to warrant the move. But in any event, at the time the 10mm was adopted, the FBI viewed it as the best choice, even if marginally better than .45. Paraphrased, but you can look up John C Hall's report on their testing... and judging he was head of the Firearms Unit at Quantico during this time, I'd rather read his stuff than listen to your "sources." I mean you did just argue with me that you didn't say you worked with people carrying S&W 10mms in the mid-1980s, so no idea how valid your info is going to be (unless you just have short-term memory issues). At that time, they were making the best decision that they could... and they stated that. Just like they recently stated that 9mm is good now because of bullet technology, but also that if an agent is going to miss 70% to 80% of their rounds, more capacity in a 9mm means better end results. It is a different view because it is a different time. I rather see that than someone argue the .45 is the best caliber from 1980 to present... as they likely are just stuck in their ways.

And to be clear, Mireles had a 586... not a 686 (got it wrong again). I guess bleeding out isn't enough of a answer for you, but try to look for pictures of the back of Grogan's/Dove's car. He walked around the trunk as he shot Hanlon, and executed Grogan and Dove... maybe a few seconds. It looks as if someone gutted an animal across it. He was not moving as fast as earlier in the shootout, nor was he as actively shooting agents (Mireles was maybe 20 feet away, McNeill was lying right in the road). I guess if someone gets shot eight times in the chest with 9mm, a last .22 put into their arm shows that rimfire got the job done, if they died right after.

Just searched "cracked 10mm frames" and got what I expected. EAA Witness, 1911/Delta Elite, and Glock 20 on the first page. Continued on the second page to this... and more Witness, Delta Elite, and Glock links.

http://ar15armory.com/forums/topic/48325-sw-1006-cracked-frame/

Reading the posts, I doubt it is a common occurrence... especially that the OP has multiples of every S&W 10mm produced (even though the GunBroker listing is dead, the view was that it was not shooting related). So, how about you prove your claim? I shouldn't have to search for something I'm not likely going to find, because you have a different view. Prove your argument yourself. I know my 1006 will handle a crap ton of full powered 10mm loads.

Agreed with the rifle not being there, but to be completely honest, I'm tired of the pompous attitude. You're old, so you know everything... give me a break. I left that part of your post out, but age doesn't make you any wiser than someone who actually did the research into this event, and the surrounding change it created.  If you think your 4" .357 is going to stop every situation your going to be in, so be it. I live in reality, instead... but prefer a 6" .44 over that. I shot a 4" 686 when I was 12, and switched to the 629-1, when my father cut his hand open on it (he started shooting the 686 after that, and still has it). I still have the revolver (was given to me when I graduated college/transferred via permit when I got a few), and will always have it. .357 Magnum doesn't have the energy I'd want with the added recoil and muzzle flash. That's why I bought a .38 +P Airweight instead of any other .357 Magnum J-frame... and converted it to 9mm because of it being a better round than .38 +P.

I stated the rifle example not to have the idea that you should be going for a long gun. I state it to example the fact that individual handgun calibers (out of the common duty chamberings) are not going to be life and death. A handgun wound is not the best type of way to stop a thread, but we deal with it for the ability to carry it. A 9mm, .40, or .45 isn't changing that. If you read the sentences following that, you'd probably see that.

But I'm sure you will start arguing with me next that you never said Mireles had a 686...

We are discussing things on a forum. Not writing a history book. If I were I would double check my info.  I guess you have never made a mistake.

Okay I erred.  However I corrected myself in the subsequent post.  It was Colts not S&W.  The fact is they had 10mm handguns.  I took a hit for the 10mm MP5 although I may not be wrong.

Yes, military and LE have different needs.  Do you expect everyone on the House appropriations committee to understand them?  If you recall correctly Sig won the first round of tests for the 9mm, they were cancelled and Beretta won the contract.  Many strange things happen in government when you're asking for money to spend.

The FBI of course never made a mistake.  Back in the 70s their ammo tests showed the 95 gr RP JHP "high velocity" 38 load worked the best.  That wasn't reflected in actual use though.

My sources were guys involved in the testing.  Yes, as the head of the firearms unit Hall okayed the final report.  So it contained what he wanted.  You can listen to him.  You don't have to listen to my sources.  

Oh yes, to be clear.  Sources say Mireles had a 686 and Platt a 586.  Look at the Wiki entry for one.  It really doesn't make a difference unless you're writing the investigation report.  The finish has no effect on the gun's performance.  Suffice it to say it was a L frame.  We can agree on that.

I'm guessing you've never been in a confrontational situation.  You don't remember everything.  There were no dash cams in those days.  One has to reconstruct as best as possible from what people involved did.  How are you so sure Platt was moving much more slowly when Mireles shot him?  From the TV movie? Everything goes slow mo in a fight.  You can look that up if you don't believe me.

You can think I'm just an old man with short term memory issues and have no idea what he's talking about.  And you would be wrong.

As for cracked S&W frames I'm guessing you didn't look hard enough.  I never said it was a common occurrence but common enough to be a concern.  Just like the slide separations on M9s.

I've never claimed to know everything.  I'm too smart to say that.  I don't know where you get off saying I have a pompous attitude.  I never said I'm always right.  If it makes you feel powerful and intelligent to do research to sharpshoot me on things that I'm recalling from 30 years ago have at it.

A 4" 357 is the best all around handgun IMO.  I never said you can deal with everything with it.  Most things.  Very good for SD against bad guys.  I'd prefer something bigger if I had to contend with grizzlies for example.  You like a 44 Magnum. That's okay but what do you base that selection on?  A 44 mag has less recoil and muzzle blast than a 357?  A 48 oz M29 shooting a 240 gr bullet has less recoil than a 45 oz GP100 shooting a 158 gr bullet?  Does your 44 defy the laws of physics?  If a 44 mag is the ideal handgun for SD why isn't there a single agency or organization that has EVER issued it as primary handgun?  Are you basing your choice of a 44 on your extensive gunfighting experience?  A full charge 44 is pretty much overkill as a SD handgun.  You think a 9mm out of a 2" is a better round than a 38 +P.  I dont.  But I'm old so what can I know?

Think what you want.  I don't care.  I'm old enough to know I can't please everyone.  I've been that way for some time now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zeke said:

. 40 reminds me of a movie about the Bradley fighting vehicle.

Wasn't 9mm adopted for NATO compliance?

Correct Zeke.  We had picked the standard NATO rifle round all along. First the 30-06, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56. Everyone else in NATO used the 9mm as a pistol round while we continued to use the 45 ACP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be the polar opposite here. I have never had a 9mm and currently have 2 .40's. Reasons being, when I got into pistols in the late 1990's 9mm's (and .380's) were considered "weak" SD rounds. Also, price was a factor for me at the time; .45's too expensive to shoot. My first pistol was/is my SIG P239 in .40. Stupid me, I thought one day we would be able to CCW in NJ, so I bought a compact pistol as my first handgun. 

Same thing when it came to my first "plastic" gun purchase. I went with the G23 in .40. Never did I once think or was led towards the G19 in 9mm. 

It think the move back towards 9mm has more to do with the ballistic capabilities of 9mm now over the .40 than anything else. Also, that is the NATO standard round, no? 

I have this debate with myself all the time: Do I sell my G23 for a G19? When considering a new pistol (S&W Shield, Springfield XD, or Walther) do I look to purchase them in 9mm?  Also, what I consider is do I really want to add another caliber to my collection? I have .22, .380, .357/38,. 40 and .45 now. 9mm too? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

Correct Zeke.  We had picked the standard NATO rifle round all along. First the 30-06, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56. Everyone else in NATO used the 9mm as a pistol round while we continued to use the 45 ACP.

Correct me please, the was the .45 acp not developed to combat against the Moro people,. In the  Philippine-American war. 

Cause they were all hopped up on goof balls, and hard to put down with the standard sidearm of the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stonecoldchavez said:

I must be the polar opposite here. I have never had a 9mm and currently have 2 .40's. Reasons being, when I got into pistols in the late 1990's 9mm's (and .380's) were considered "weak" SD rounds. Also, price was a factor for me at the time; .45's too expensive to shoot. My first pistol was/is my SIG P239 in .40. Stupid me, I thought one day we would be able to CCW in NJ, so I bought a compact pistol as my first handgun. 

Same thing when it came to my first "plastic" gun purchase. I went with the G23 in .40. Never did I once think or was led towards the G19 in 9mm. 

It think the move back towards 9mm has more to do with the ballistic capabilities of 9mm now over the .40 than anything else. Also, that is the NATO standard round, no? 

I have this debate with myself all the time: Do I sell my G23 for a G19? When considering a new pistol (S&W Shield, Springfield XD, or Walther) do I look to purchase them in 9mm?  Also, what I consider is do I really want to add another caliber to my collection? I have .22, .380, .357/38,. 40 and .45 now. 9mm too? 

One day, we will carry here. Depends on current events if it will be by law, or that of combative necessity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Correct me please, the was the .45 acp not developed to combat against the Moro people,. In the  Philippine-American war. 

Cause they were all hopped up on goof balls, and hard to put down with the standard sidearm of the time.

 

 

I believe that to be true.  That the .38's at the time were deemed not strong enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

@Stonecoldchavez

Thanks for sharing, but there's no need to sell off your Glock 23.  First, it isn't worth what you think it is.  And second, it's a great gun.

Glock 23s are going for $350 at LGS all day long.  Expect $325-$375ish...

 

And there are a boat load of em there.  Along with Glock 42s, and Shields in .40

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Tapatalk is back, little easier to reply...

We are discussing things on a forum. Not writing a history book. If I were I would double check my info.  I guess you have never made a mistake.
Okay I erred.  However I corrected myself in the subsequent post.  It was Colts not S&W.  The fact is they had 10mm handguns.  I took a hit for the 10mm MP5 although I may not be wrong.


True, but when someone states that younger shooters don't know the story of .40, then proceeds to go over it, don't you think you should be correct? If I make a mistake, I'll own it.

You did not correct yourself when I posted my last quote... but stated you never said you saw S&W 10mms in the 1980s. Like I said, people make mistakes... but if you are going to call me out when you can clearly go back and read that you were wrong, that isn't correcting your error.

Do you expect everyone on the House appropriations committee to understand them?  If you recall correctly Sig won the first round of tests for the 9mm, they were cancelled and Beretta won the contract.  Many strange things happen in government when you're asking for money to spend.


It is the job of the agency asking for funds to explain their reasons for it. Politicians aren't gun people, and can be argued that they really aren't people... but if you have the data to support it, you have a higher chance to get the funding. If their evidence was better for .45, how did they get 10mm? I would think they would have done better saying a 11.43mm...

Actually, that is leaving out some details in regards to the M9 contract. Both Beretta and SIG passed the tests, SIG had a cheaper pistol price, but Beretta had the cheaper overall price. Arguing that Beretta was subpar is not fair (seeing your comment below, I understand your stance [emoji849]), as both pistols were capable to pass the testing, and similar designs (9mm, DA/SA, 15 round magazines). And if you look into it, the requirements did ask for a ambidextrous thumb safety... not present on the SIG. In fairness, that was actually saving tax payers money, or at least moving funds from that to other places it could have been blown.

The FBI of course never made a mistake.  Back in the 70s their ammo tests showed the 95 gr RP JHP "high velocity" 38 load worked the best.  That wasn't reflected in actual use though.
My sources were guys involved in the testing.  Yes, as the head of the firearms unit Hall okayed the final report.  So it contained what he wanted.  You can listen to him.  You don't have to listen to my sources.


I never said the FBI was right/wrong. Hell, they were trying .22 LR full size revolvers for those that were recoil shy from .38 Specials in the early years. They tried it, noticed it was going nowhere... and scrapped the project.

I stated at that time (1980s), they made the best decision they could make, considering ammo technology at that time. Likewise, the reversing of their opinion back to 9mm this year is correct... even if it goes completely against the previous one.

In regards to the 10mm verses .45, it is in the report that they felt it was marginally better than .45 (their data is in the report). Considering all handgun rounds have limited capabilities... that can be concluded as they are identical. However, being slightly better in their testing concluded that they should go that route.

Either way, I don't necessarily want to base a caliber for self defense off of 30+ year old testing.

Oh yes, to be clear.  Sources say Mireles had a 686 and Platt a 586.  Look at the Wiki entry for one.  It really doesn't make a difference unless you're writing the investigation report.  The finish has no effect on the gun's performance.  Suffice it to say it was a L frame.  We can agree on that.


Yea, Wikipedia is definitely the best place to get information...

You are correct, Platt did have a 586... 6" barrel, which was found next to his Mini-14 magazine... he dropped it when either Orrantia or Risner shot him in the arm. You want the serial number for it? I can look it up when I get home.

Only place I've ever seen someone report Mireles shooting a 686 was Ayoob's book that touched on the shooting with a handful of other ones. In all fairness, there are plenty of errors in his description of events that I wouldn't put it as factual (McNeill using .357s... which I did check the other day, a .38 was pulled out of Matix's head, that was linked to McNeill's first cylinder, prior to his revolver becoming jammed).

I'm guessing you've never been in a confrontational situation.  You don't remember everything.  There were no dash cams in those days.  One has to reconstruct as best as possible from what people involved did.  How are you so sure Platt was moving much more slowly when Mireles shot him?  From the TV movie? Everything goes slow mo in a fight.  You can look that up if you don't believe me.


I actually am very aware of that... figured this would be a good spot to put exactly why I do know a lot about this shooting. I started my senior paper in college on how highly publicized incidents had their effect on law enforcement. Was originally going to be three shootouts (OK Corral, Miami, and North Hollywood), but with the lack of creditable information available on Miami (Wikipedia isn't that credible [emoji6]), I actually decided to go strictly on that and gather sources.

So, I still have a banker box full of all of my research material for this incident. Statements from surviving agents, witnesses, first responders, medical/ballistic reports, and then even correspondence with those who were still alive (those I could make contact with). How much research have you done on it, if you don't mind me asking?

In regards to the In The Line of Duty movie, that actually played a big role in my research... as I saw it when I was younger, and it sparked an interest in the shootout that allowed me to do some very interesting research that I probably would never have done if I did a basic CJ topic that didn't mean anything to me.

You can think I'm just an old man with short term memory issues and have no idea what he's talking about.  And you would be wrong.


I actually don't, as sarcasm doesn't read well across the internet...

I think you are a stubborn old guy, who thinks what comes out of your mouth is scripture... and I do actually mean that with no disrespect. That was my view the first time I read your first post I quoted, as you were going to show us young guys the reality behind the .40. There is a guy I see at the range from time to time that is exactly the same... you don't shoot trap at Salomon's, do you?

As for cracked S&W frames I'm guessing you didn't look hard enough.  I never said it was a common occurrence but common enough to be a concern.  Just like the slide separations on M9s.


[emoji15]

You stated it was the reason why the FBI went to the lighter loading (which is incorrect). And told me to Google it to find out.

I've been shooting 10mm out of a 1006 since 2008, and while I don't reload (no room currently, likely when I leave the state), I buy actual 10mm loads. Also a part of two different 10mm forums, which I hang around to get a heads up on parts/magazines/if the conversion barrel project ever formulates (where I got my 15 round FBI magazine from). People on there have put quite a few rounds down range in S&W 10mms... and I've never see someone mention frames cracking due to shooting.

So, if you are going to suggest something like that... post your evidence. I don't need to look for something I doubt occurred.

I've never claimed to know everything.  I'm too smart to say that.  I don't know where you get off saying I have a pompous attitude.  I never said I'm always right.  If it makes you feel powerful and intelligent to do research to sharpshoot me on things that I'm recalling from 30 years ago have at it.


I call it how I see it... I've given examples of it a handful of times in my replies, so go back and read.

And I've also said numerous times that people make mistakes. Someone makes one, it's more than fine... and I wouldn't hold you to something 30+ years ago. However, when you are going to argue things because you want to argue, or act like I cannot read what you wrote and try to say something else was said, then yes... you are getting the response I've been posting. None of it goes against the rules of the forum, nor am I actively being aggressive towards you... I am describing your attitude in this thread, since you seem to be the only person not seeing it.

A 4" 357 is the best all around handgun IMO.  I never said you can deal with everything with it.  Most things.  Very good for SD against bad guys.  I'd prefer something bigger if I had to contend with grizzlies for example.  You like a 44 Magnum. That's okay but what do you base that selection on?  A 44 mag has less recoil and muzzle blast than a 357?  A 48 oz M29 shooting a 240 gr bullet has less recoil than a 45 oz GP100 shooting a 158 gr bullet?  Does your 44 defy the laws of physics?  If a 44 mag is the ideal handgun for SD why isn't there a single agency or organization that has EVER issued it as primary handgun?  Are you basing your choice of a 44 on your extensive gunfighting experience?  A full charge 44 is pretty much overkill as a SD handgun.  You think a 9mm out of a 2" is a better round than a 38 +P.  I dont.  But I'm old so what can I know?


[emoji23] Where to begin...

First off, where did I say I prefer a .44 Magnum for self defense? You stated I should invest in a 4" .357, which I'm not going to. I've considered a 5" (R8), but I don't have a use for a .357. I prefer the .44 over the .357, as I feel the jump from .38 to .357 isn't worth the increase in noise/flash/recoil. .44 Special to Magnum, I feel is worth it, due to the power increase between the two cartridges. Again, that is my view... so, if I feel that way, do you think a 4" .357 is the most versatile handgun for me? I have no .357s, and two .44s (S&W, and then a Ruger 44 Carbine... the tube fed one). But that is neither here nor there.

In regards to recoil, you can take whatever equation you want to use... but recoil is a subjective characteristic. As I said, I started shooting a .44 Magnum at 12 years old. The first time I ever used Specials was probably about 10-12 years after that. I know people that are afraid of it just because of the BS with the movie. Others are scared of the blast. I've seen small frame women shoot them, and larger guys scared of it.

Im glad I don't have to base anything on my extensive gunfighting experience... and I think most people rather not have that experience. I'm sure there are plenty of internet badasses out there that are just waiting for that fight. Personally, I make choices based on my own shooting and practice for something that I hope never occurs.

Well, you running a chronograph to make that comment about 9mm over .38+P? A 110 grain .38+P (Hornady, but forget round; maybe CD, but can't say for exact) did the same velocity out of that revolver as a 147 grain 9mm Hornady XTP. My five shot averages were within like 5 feet per second. So, if two bullets are exiting the muzzle at identical speeds, the heavier one has more energy. Besides that, 9mm on moon clips beats carrying over .38s in a speed loader... hell, even .38s in moon clips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Correct me please, the was the .45 acp not developed to combat against the Moro people,. In the  Philippine-American war. 

Cause they were all hopped up on goof balls, and hard to put down with the standard sidearm of the time.

 

Correct.  The 38 Long Colt they used in the Phillipines was seriously lacking in stopping power.  The immediate solution was issuing 45 SAAs they had in stock.

Not sure what the Moros got high on.  They were radical Muslims who refused to be subject to US rule.  Kind of like the same drug used to strap on a vest of explosives.

The 45 ACP was adopted as a result of the Thompson LaGarde tests of 1904. You can find the entire report online.  Only 40 or so pages. Yes, that's the same Thompson that later invented the Tommy Gun.

27 minutes ago, Stonecoldchavez said:

 

I believe that to be true.  That the .38's at the time were deemed not strong enough. 

Keep in mind those 38's were 38 Long Colt not 38 Special which has a longer case and is a slightly hotter round.  IIRC the 38 Special wasn't included in the Thompson LaGarde tests although it was around. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Screwball said:

Now that Tapatalk is back, little easier to reply...
 

 


True, but when someone states that younger shooters don't know the story of .40, then proceeds to go over it, don't you think you should be correct? If I make a mistake, I'll own it.

You did not correct yourself when I posted my last quote... but stated you never said you saw S&W 10mms in the 1980s. Like I said, people make mistakes... but if you are going to call me out when you can clearly go back and read that you were wrong, that isn't correcting your error.



It is the job of the agency asking for funds to explain their reasons for it. Politicians aren't gun people, and can be argued that they really aren't people... but if you have the data to support it, you have a higher chance to get the funding. If their evidence was better for .45, how did they get 10mm? I would think they would have done better saying a 11.43mm...

Actually, that is leaving out some details in regards to the M9 contract. Both Beretta and SIG passed the tests, SIG had a cheaper pistol price, but Beretta had the cheaper overall price. Arguing that Beretta was subpar is not fair (seeing your comment below, I understand your stance emoji849.png), as both pistols were capable to pass the testing, and similar designs (9mm, DA/SA, 15 round magazines). And if you look into it, the requirements did ask for a ambidextrous thumb safety... not present on the SIG. In fairness, that was actually saving tax payers money, or at least moving funds from that to other places it could have been blown.



I never said the FBI was right/wrong. Hell, they were trying .22 LR full size revolvers for those that were recoil shy from .38 Specials in the early years. They tried it, noticed it was going nowhere... and scrapped the project.

I stated at that time (1980s), they made the best decision they could make, considering ammo technology at that time. Likewise, the reversing of their opinion back to 9mm this year is correct... even if it goes completely against the previous one.

In regards to the 10mm verses .45, it is in the report that they felt it was marginally better than .45 (their data is in the report). Considering all handgun rounds have limited capabilities... that can be concluded as they are identical. However, being slightly better in their testing concluded that they should go that route.

Either way, I don't necessarily want to base a caliber for self defense off of 30+ year old testing.



Yea, Wikipedia is definitely the best place to get information...

You are correct, Platt did have a 586... 6" barrel, which was found next to his Mini-14 magazine... he dropped it when either Orrantia or Risner shot him in the arm. You want the serial number for it? I can look it up when I get home.

Only place I've ever seen someone report Mireles shooting a 686 was Ayoob's book that touched on the shooting with a handful of other ones. In all fairness, there are plenty of errors in his description of events that I wouldn't put it as factual (McNeill using .357s... which I did check the other day, a .38 was pulled out of Matix's head, that was linked to McNeill's first cylinder, prior to his revolver becoming jammed).



I actually am very aware of that... figured this would be a good spot to put exactly why I do know a lot about this shooting. I started my senior paper in college on how highly publicized incidents had their effect on law enforcement. Was originally going to be three shootouts (OK Corral, Miami, and North Hollywood), but with the lack of creditable information available on Miami (Wikipedia isn't that credible emoji6.png), I actually decided to go strictly on that and gather sources.

So, I still have a banker box full of all of my research material for this incident. Statements from surviving agents, witnesses, first responders, medical/ballistic reports, and then even correspondence with those who were still alive (those I could make contact with). How much research have you done on it, if you don't mind me asking?

In regards to the In The Line of Duty movie, that actually played a big role in my research... as I saw it when I was younger, and it sparked an interest in the shootout that allowed me to do some very interesting research that I probably would never have done if I did a basic CJ topic that didn't mean anything to me.



I actually don't, as sarcasm doesn't read well across the internet...

I think you are a stubborn old guy, who thinks what comes out of your mouth is scripture... and I do actually mean that with no disrespect. That was my view the first time I read your first post I quoted, as you were going to show us young guys the reality behind the .40. There is a guy I see at the range from time to time that is exactly the same... you don't shoot trap at Salomon's, do you?



emoji15.png

You stated it was the reason why the FBI went to the lighter loading (which is incorrect). And told me to Google it to find out.

I've been shooting 10mm out of a 1006 since 2008, and while I don't reload (no room currently, likely when I leave the state), I buy actual 10mm loads. Also a part of two different 10mm forums, which I hang around to get a heads up on parts/magazines/if the conversion barrel project ever formulates (where I got my 15 round FBI magazine from). People on there have put quite a few rounds down range in S&W 10mms... and I've never see someone mention frames cracking due to shooting.

So, if you are going to suggest something like that... post your evidence. I don't need to look for something I doubt occurred.



I call it how I see it... I've given examples of it a handful of times in my replies, so go back and read.

And I've also said numerous times that people make mistakes. Someone makes one, it's more than fine... and I wouldn't hold you to something 30+ years ago. However, when you are going to argue things because you want to argue, or act like I cannot read what you wrote and try to say something else was said, then yes... you are getting the response I've been posting. None of it goes against the rules of the forum, nor am I actively being aggressive towards you... I am describing your attitude in this thread, since you seem to be the only person not seeing it.



emoji23.png Where to begin...

First off, where did I say I prefer a .44 Magnum for self defense? You stated I should invest in a 4" .357, which I'm not going to. I've considered a 5" (R8), but I don't have a use for a .357. I prefer the .44 over the .357, as I feel the jump from .38 to .357 isn't worth the increase in noise/flash/recoil. .44 Special to Magnum, I feel is worth it, due to the power increase between the two cartridges. Again, that is my view... so, if I feel that way, do you think a 4" .357 is the most versatile handgun for me? I have no .357s, and two .44s (S&W, and then a Ruger 44 Carbine... the tube fed one). But that is neither here nor there.

In regards to recoil, you can take whatever equation you want to use... but recoil is a subjective characteristic. As I said, I started shooting a .44 Magnum at 12 years old. The first time I ever used Specials was probably about 10-12 years after that. I know people that are afraid of it just because of the BS with the movie. Others are scared of the blast. I've seen small frame women shoot them, and larger guys scared of it.

Im glad I don't have to base anything on my extensive gunfighting experience... and I think most people rather not have that experience. I'm sure there are plenty of internet badasses out there that are just waiting for that fight. Personally, I make choices based on my own shooting and practice for something that I hope never occurs.

Well, you running a chronograph to make that comment about 9mm over .38+P? A 110 grain .38+P (Hornady, but forget round; maybe CD, but can't say for exact) did the same velocity out of that revolver as a 147 grain 9mm Hornady XTP. My five shot averages were within like 5 feet per second. So, if two bullets are exiting the muzzle at identical speeds, the heavier one has more energy. Besides that, 9mm on moon clips beats carrying over .38s in a speed loader... hell, even .38s in moon clips.

 

Too long, way too long.

let it go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Correct.  The 38 Long Colt they used in the Phillipines was seriously lacking in stopping power.  The immediate solution was issuing 45 SAAs they had in stock.

Not sure what the Moros got high on.  They were radical Muslims who refused to be subject to US rule.  Kind of like the same drug used to strap on a vest of explosives.

The 45 ACP was adopted as a result of the Thompson LaGarde tests of 1904. You can find the entire report online.  Only 40 or so pages. Yes, that's the same Thompson that later invented the Tommy Gun.

Keep in mind those 38's were 38 Long Colt not 38 Special which has a longer case and is a slightly hotter round.  IIRC the 38 Special wasn't included in the Thompson LaGarde tests although it was around. 

Goof balls is close enough.

thank you for your reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 9mm to be as effective as the 40Cal, I believe it would have to be +p+ load to have the same ballistic effects.

if you have to shoot twice as much ammo to be as effective as one thats downfall so having more capacity makes bad sense most 40 cals are high capacity also.

I remember the 9mm and jump to 40 cal just seems odd to go back again. but hey most of those 40's probably need replacing by now anyway.

i can also remember the issues with 1st gen glocks having to file the mags down so they fit in the guns after being loaded for extended periods of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...