St Paul LEO to go from .40 to 9mm

[timpitera]

A buddy of mine works for SPPD. I can't wait to get his thoughts on this one?

St. Paul's police officers to get new guns - TwinCities.com

[ronnie gore]

well i spent 33 years in law enforcement, and my observation was that most police officers don't shoot very well without a lot of training, switching to 9mm alows for cheaper ammo and more training and easier to handle pistols. the s.o. here recently switched to 9mm from 40 also.

[BigRich315]

Very interesting, Tim, thanks for the story.

This speaks alot toward the .40 vs 9mm debate, as well as how those who simply research guns often have different opinions than those whom actually use them. You have to strike this one up for the 9mm camp.

I love .40, but my hands aren't what they used to be, so I'm leaning more towards 9mm these days (or even .45 for that matter). I also love M&Ps and am glad to see another win for S&W.

I'd like to see if they find a clear distinction between the two makes (the S&W being superior of course ). Please, let us know which one your buddy chose and his impressions on the change.

[ikor]

I don't have any insight as to why St. Paul made the change, but the Gen3 and 4 Glocks in .40 have been giving enough problems where guys are running weaponlights all the time on duty sidearms that several other agencies have switched back to the 9mm. In a few cases, Glock swapped the pistols at no charge.

[jimmyj]

What 9mm duty round is the SPPD going to use?

[Palmetto Sharpshooter]

That is a reasonable decision. I find that even though most officers prefer the "higher power" afforded by the .40, they don't shoot it as well as the 9mm. Misses don't count on the range or the street.

[MeefZah]

I was at a demo hosted by a local agency and Winchester ammunition recently, and heard several firearms instructors lamenting ever having switched to the .40 from the 9, due to the issues with training novice shooters.

I really don't much care for the .40, and don't feel undergunned carrying a 9mm.

You can argue the superiority of that extra 0.02 inches all day long but I bet guys who were shot with each one would be hard pressed to tell you which hole was from which gun...

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

That is a reasonable decision. I find that even though most officers prefer the "higher power" afforded by the .40, they don't shoot it as well as the 9mm. Misses don't count on the range or the street.
Like

I generally agree with some of the above comments that the 9mm, when properly loaded, is a very sufficient and effective round.

On the other hand, I really disagree that the .40 S&W is inherently difficult to shoot, and to shoot accurately. I've seen small framed women shoot it very effectively.

I recently been shooting a box of 9mm from a 5906 and then a box from a much smaller and lighter 4014 in .40 S&W.

I don't really find it to be "unpleasant" at all to put down a heavy 9mm and switch to the light 4014 in.40, nor hard to keep similar very nice patterns on the target.

If these PD's are getting significantly better deals on range ammo in 9mm and they're shooting quantities where this cost delta means something, maybe that makes sense. But if they're making the switch because they aren't giving their officers enough range time to become familiar and effective with a .40 its pathetic.

Maybe someone (probably who had never even shot a .40) convinced the Chief it is has a "snappy" recoil. Another generally overused and not accurate description.

[cjtraining]

When the agency I work for transitioned from revolver to SA, they bought the S&W 4046. The good shooters had no problem, the masses did. The weapon was heavy and hard to hold. The small hand shooter, who was a fair to poor shooter got worse and had to shoot several times to qualify. We carried them from 1989 to 2007, then we changed to the S&W/Walther M99, in .40 caliber. The only good thing about the weapon was it's lighter and the grip could be adjusted. In 2009, Smith gave us a deal on the .40 S&W M&P. The 99 proved the be a poor quality weapon. Our officers are now shooting much better. Giving up .40 for 9mm has never been discussed. However, we as most agencies, have shooters who shoudn't have a sharp stick, much less a gun.

[mbnatt]

Never really cared for the .40, it has more felt recoil than the .45, and really doesn't seem to perform any better than the 9. probably a smart decision. IMO

[oldman45]

I do not care if a person shoots a .22 or a .500. Whatever they shoot, they need to shoot it well.

Yet I doubt you will ever see many LEO shooting well since most are not gun people. They have a job that requires them to carry a sidearm and they shoot their sidearm during each qualification.

I also know that most departments will never return to the 9mm. It has been tested and proven to not be as effective of a round as others.

Maybe a certain gun maker offered a heck of a deal to get a department to buy more guns. It happened initially and guns were pretty much given away to get a foot in the door. A good sales pitch and some money floating around for trades, dinners or trips and departments will do a lot.

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

Never really cared for the .40, it has more felt recoil than the .45, and really doesn't seem to perform any better than the 9. probably a smart decision. IMO

I'm not trying to be oppositional here. But again, will relate that I've shot a lot of .45 rounds, and last week was shooting a friends full size 1911 in .45 and then shot a box of .40 S&W though my much lighter 4014. Then I shot a box of +P 9mm through my 5906

I really don't think there was that much difference in felt recoil.

And there is quite a bit of evidence that a .40 S&W does outperform a 9mm to a degree that makes it worthwhile.

I say this as someone that has a lot of love and respect for the 9mm and shoot it often. I feel very comfortable carrying and depending on my 9mm's with Gold Dot and similar ammo. I'm starting to prefer the .40 S&W in many ways though.

Fortunately, I don't plan to choose one over the other as both are effective rounds with modern loadings.

[Onisius]

I carried a 9mm for many years as a cop, than went to a 40 til retirement. Placement is paramount, no matter what the caliber.

As for training the candy arses of both genders that are joining LE.
I am thankful that I am no longer have to deal with them or rely on them as my back-up. Too many people better suited to phone tech support are joining LE.

FWIW, my Chief for over a decade of my career was a remedial shooter his entire 30yr career. Even with Smith revolvers, Glock 9's and 40's.
However the guy was killer with a pen and a disciplinary form.

[Mack]

Agree or not but the FBI ammo testing standards define what is desired in duty handgun ammo and the current crop of 9's are the equal to everything else commonly in use. I was surprised how well they stack up even against .357 Sig. If I were stuck defending myself using Ball ammo then I would want something with a 4 in the name, but if I can use a current JHP then a 9 works just fine.

[carl3989]

Yet the Nassau county pd is transitioning from 9mm to .40.

[Cavaliere]

At the end of the day, all that counts are hits. If a department can improve the statistical probability that its officers will hit, rather than miss, in a shooting, then the switch to 9mm is more than justified. I would assume that the factors leading to a switch from .40 to 9mm would include considerations of cost (both ammunition and handgun) as well as improved training procedures. Reducing bullet diameter by 0.02" hardly seems like a retrograde step if it results in even a 10% improvement in accuracy in officer involved shootings.

[Miami_JBT]

Most cops can't shoot worth a damn. They're not gun folks... same in the military. Most GIs aren't trigger pullers.

I'm a 2nd gen Cop and a Vet. I'm a gun guy. I own and and shoot 9x19mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP. 10mm, .357 Mag, .45 Colt, etc....

I've carried 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 GAP on duty. They all pretty much feel the same to me. All have been out of a fullsize GLOCK. .45 GAP feels the smoothest when shooting. .40 S&W feels a little snappier. I mean little.... not a "Oh my God, my wrist is broken". It just jumps a little more. But if you're a shooter. You can use .40 S&W without a problem.

But remember folks.... most cops find going to the range a chore and will do everything they can do to get out of range details. They hate shooting and don't want to do it. They want to do the required forty rounds and leave.

I enjoy shooting.... did a course in which I fired 10,000 rounds in a 24 hour period. My fingers were sore and wrapped in medical tape by the end. I LOVED IT.... did it with a GLOCK 22 in .40 S&W.

In the end... if you want to win a gun fight, start one with a cop. Most cant shoot if theirs lives depended on it.... and sadly it does as do ours.

[Pioneer461]

Many police officers (me included) moved to .40 S&W in the 90's because of the simple matter that 9mm's were not working well on the streets for stopping aggressive attackers. Nines developed a nasty reputation for not stopping bad guys. The .40 has a snappy recoil but considering it is a toned down 10mm, it is very controllable.

In recent years 9 mm self defense ammunition has been much improved, producing better street fight stops. That along with the advent of lighter weight polymer pistols, does make the .40 recoil a bit tough for some to handle.

Rarely do police departments make weapon decisions based on street performance. Mostly it comes down to budgets and political correctness, by providing firearms that can be carried by even the smallest, weakest officers.

IMO, departments should offer their officers options. Those who want 9's should be allowed to carry them and all who wish to carry 40's and 45's should have those options. There is no one-caliber-fits-all.

[Scotter260]

I attended a course at the St. Paul PDI a few years back and perhaps a few of the instructors have changed but I can say that of the 10+ instructors to which I was exposed, they were there because they enjoyed firearms and aiding officers in utilizing them proficiently.

I didn't observe them as being there to stroke their egos or as a way to increase their status, they just loved what they were doing.

If the instructors' input was used to make this decision then I'm certain it was made from a practical and realistic position. Good performance, easier shooting, higher capacity, lower price, what's not to like?

[charlie sherrill]

We had this debate at my department several years ago. We were transitioning from basically whatever you want to carry to a department issued weapon. We're a small department with only one range officer. He was gung-ho 9 mm for the cost factor alone. The sheriff was nice enough to let us vote on what we wanted to carry and the .40 came in first followed by the .45 acp, and the nine came in last. We're still carrying the Glock 22 and went to the latest model not long ago. I preferred thhe 10 mm but it wasn't in the running...unless you look in the glove box of my POV.

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

scotter wrote:

If the instructors' input was used to make this decision then I'm certain it was made from a practical and realistic position. Good performance, easier shooting, higher capacity, lower price, what's not to like?

scotter: Sadly, I'm not sure if that's true. I tried to go back to the OP's post and read the article from it's link, but it appears to now be off that newspapers site. So I'm not sure if the instructors had input in the decision, or it was done by bureaucrats.

Again, I don't have any trouble carrying my 9's with Gold Dot or similar ammo, but much prefer the .40 with Gold Dot, or a .45 for that matter.

As a lifelong hunter, this reminds me of some of the endless discussions about small, hot rifle rounds vs, some of the old standards like 30.06, 7mm, and 300 Win Mag. lots of charts are discussed, talk about bullet construction, wound channels, etc.

Yes, placement counts foremost, as does using modern, best quality bullets. Still, I've seen many animals go for some distance and sometimes not be recovered when shot in a seemingly vital spot like the lungs, when made with a 243 or similar round. Yet I've shot dozens of deer with a 30-.06 bolt action over the years, and it usually drops them extremely quickly. In fact, of the last 20 deer or so I've shot, I can only recall having to shoot twice on one of them. And I really didn't have to as it turned out.

Bullets shot out of pistols have a fraction of the energy as those in modern rifles. Yes, the shots are closer, but I want to be shooting the biggest, hottest load I can out of a pistol.

I know on these boards we have the "good cops". A 'self selecting population" would be the term from a statistics standpoint. Cops that are enthusiasts and shoot a lot. Sadly, that's not always the case in the general LEO population. My good friend and hunting partner is a local LEO, and is always bitching that their Chief will not give them any range time, and that many of the other cops have no desire to practice. He told me he doesn't trust several of them to back him up if needed.

If you're going to be a cop, you should be able to handle the most effective ammo that's needed for the job and trained properly on how to use it. Some of the LEO's around here these days seem to be very comfortable using their Tasers on drunks, but as one of the LEO's posted above, are not proficient with their sidearm.

The enthusiast cops I know, and guys like Charlie Sherrill that posted above, want to use 45's, 10's and .40's if given a choice (I know a few that would stick with the .357 Mag if given the choice!)

Let's face it, the 9mm is an adequate round with modern loadings. I really like it. That doesn't make it the best round for the job, nor should decisions about moving to it from .40's be made because "it's cheaper" or because some "can't properly shoot" the .40.

It's too bad the bad guys don't have the necessary fear they should have that if they get shot by a cop, they will most likely die very quickly.

[Scotter260]

VTHokie,

I tracked the linked article down and there was a great deal of input for the article from a Sgt. who was credited as being the range supervisor. He cited their research as finding the advances in 9mm technology to be sufficient for their needs and close enough to the .40s performance that it wasn't detrimental. He also indicated that when officers were brought to the range to try out the likely replacements, Glock 17, 19 and M&P 9, they shot them better. He also indicated slightly higher capacity and lower cost as enhancing their decision.

Their program and range, based on my experience, are phenomenal. In speaking with their officers that attended the training I was at showed they can sign up just about as often as they want for a broad range of courses.

I recall reading an old article on Glocks, I believe by Massad Ayoob for whatever that's worth, that they were one of the first large departments if not the first to issue Glocks back in the 80s. I believe they're quite progressive when it comes to their firearms training.