Illinois State Police report on 1967 adoption of 9 mm pistol
Versions of this ISP report were published in several police and gun magazines of the time.
The attachment is the same report in a PDF to save time for any who would like to save it.
====================
Report of Justification for Adopting The 9mm Semi-automatic Pistol as Service Weapon By The Illinois State Police
Prepared By Ordnance Unit Illinois State Police
[original 1967/68] Revised February 10, 1972
In 1966, several problems were identified in connection with the use of the standard revolver by the Illinois State Police. At that time, all personnel were required to furnish, from personal funds, a service revolver which had to meet the following criteria:
1. fire either .38 special or .357 magnum ammunition, and
2. be equipped with 4, 5 or 6 inch [102-, 127-, or 152-millimeter] barrel, and
3. be one of several different models of Colt or Smith and Wesson manufacture.
Since it was the policy of this agency (and continues to be) that all personnel carry star [badge], I.D. Card and weapon at all times while off-duty, it was found that many of our officers were also purchasing smaller weapons to carry while in off-duty or plain clothes situations. The only requirement of the department was that the off-duty weapon be of .32 caliber as a minimum. A survey of all personnel was conducted within the department and it was learned that because of the need for concealment and comfort, the vast majority of our men had purchased and were carrying (off-duty) a rather surprising assortment of guns.
It was determined that there was a wide range of types and styles of guns and ammunition. More importantly, it was learned that there were serious discrepancies in the condition of many of these off-duty weapons.
Since legal decisions were making it increasingly obvious that the courts were going to hold the department responsible for the training of its police personnel in the use of firearms and, more importantly, for their competency in using those weapons, the Illinois State Police found itself in a situation of concern. In an effort to overcome this problem, all personnel were required to fire their off-duty weapon as well as their service gun for qualification. Our Marksmanship Qualification Course (50 rounds) was fired 10 times on an annual basis, 7 times as Practice Shoots and 3 times as Qualification Shoots. The results of firing the off-duty weapon for qualification were somewhat startling.
Weapon Ammunition Score (Possible 500)
Service Revolver .38 Special Target Wadcutter 393 (Statewide Field Average)
Off-Duty Weapon .38 Special Target Wadcutter 217 (Statewide Field Average)
For purposes of comparison
S&W Model 39 Special Police Service Load 387 (Statewide Field Average)
Our weakness was very obvious—the "off-duty" weapon! We were faced with two alternatives:
1. Greatly increase the level of training and practice with the off-duty firearm and continue the program of training and practice with the "on-duty" weapon, or
2. issue a state-owned firearm which by design and weight and overall competency would serve as both "on- duty" and "off-duty" weapon and maintain a training and practice program for that one gun.
Because at that time the State did not own any of the guns used by State Police personnel, it was felt that it would be very difficult to raise the level of competency and condition of the "off-duty" weapons carried and owned by members of the Illinois State Police. Additionally, it was recognized that a training program sufficient to raise the level of "shooter" competency with the "off-duty" weapon would be very expensive from the standpoint of both ammunition and man-hours. All recruits had received 50 hours of training with their service revolvers during their assignment at recruit school. There had been no training with the "off-duty" weapon. Also, because of the very wide range of types and condition of "off-duty" guns, it was recognized that the design and implementation of a training program directed toward "off-duty" guns would be very questionable as to its effectiveness. It was decided to survey available police weapons then in use with a view toward trying to find one firearm that would satisfy both the "on-duty" and "off-duty" police needs of our department. Thus, the time and cost of training in the "off-duty" weapon would be removed and the department would control the condition and competency of firearms carried by its members in "off-duty" situations.
Many tests were conducted, but they will not be repeated here because we were also experimenting with many different loads. Our tests did show that the 9 mm is no panacea with respect to being the only police service weapon. The 9 mm is no different than any other caliber from .32 through .45. The final determination is dependent upon the component parts of the weapon being used and the capability of the person handling the weapon. A good cartridge can be made in all these calibers if the manufacturer is desirous of doing so. At the present time, one of the leading manufacturers [Winchester-Western] in this country is taking an interest in this project and has been working very closely with our department in ballistically testing various combinations of load and bullet weight.
One important reason for eliminating the small revolver was that they lacked either sufficient stopping power or practical accuracy. In eliminating these weapons, it was not necessarily because they were not capable of being fired accurately. It was because the average trooper could not master these weapons in the training time that was available. We further decided that any weapon not capable of delivering a bullet with foot-pounds of energy approximately 400 F.P.E. [Foot-Pound Energy] to the "right address" would not be a satisfactory service weapon.
This foot-pound energy, we felt was a "must," so an attempt was made to utilize a medium size 4-inch [102- millimeter] revolver by lightening the projectile and lessening the recoil. To do this, it was necessary to increase the velocity for compensation. This proved successful to a point; however, current revolver sights would not handle the variation in hits caused by the small variation in bullet weights. Knowing that semi-automatics were less prone to these variations, we next turned to the following:
The .45 caliber [M1911 Colt] fell from our list quickly as it has always been a weapon hard to master with a limited amount of training and, in reducing the weights of the bullets, functional difficulties developed. Also, the noise level was high and speed with safety was a problem so we decided to experiment with modern semi-automatics.
The .38 Caliber Super [Colt] Commander was one of the last weapons we eliminated and only because the Smith & Wesson Model 39 has additional features which make it more like our faithful friend, the revolver—safe and fast for the first shot.
The Model 39 had many features we felt were advantageous to a policeman:
A. Weight—less than two-thirds the weight of our lightest permissible service revolver (261/2 ounces [751 grams]).
B. Width—three-fourths the width of our .38 caliber special revolver (1'/8" to 1%" [28.6-38 millimeters]) with no sudden or uneven bulges like the cylinder on the revolver.
C. Length—two inches [50.8 millimeters] shorter than the four-inch [102-millimeter] revolver (7/16 inches [192 millimeters] long), yet, the barrel lengths are the same. Also, the cartridge is completely encased by the barrel with no side splash of lead that all revolvers display to some degree.
D. Height—(5'/2" [139.7 millimeters]) which is 1/4" [6.35 millimeters] lower than the revolver. It has a grip for larger hands due to the trigger being almost one inch [25.4 millimeters] higher on the semi-automatic, permitting the wrist to be straight and not cramping the fingers.
E. The balance or grip is such that there are no two or more ways to grip this pistol as on the revolver. In fact, the hand falls into one position on the grips, making this pistol an excellent pointer with a minimum of training or effort.
F. Safety— Even with the magazine inserted and a round in the chamber, this pistol is as safe as a loaded revolver because the hammer is down and either has to be cocked or fired double action.
1. Magazine Safety— By removing the magazine, the pistol becomes inoperative even with a live round in the chamber. If this magazine is then placed in the uniform trouser pocket with the car keys, etc., one will not forget to reload the pistol on dressing for duty. When storing the gun with magazine out, the manual safety should be in the "on" position since we found that with the inertia-type firing pin, if the gun is dropped from a height of four (4) feet [1.2 meters] or more and lands directly on the end of the barrel, the firing pin will go forward with enough momentum to fire the round in the chamber. If the manual safety is "on" this locks the firing pin in place and the round cannot fire through mishandling.
2. Thumb Safety—This safety is applied first when loading a round in the chamber. This always leaves the hammer in a safe position (down), with the manual movement of the slide.
G. Also, once in action, a trooper has more ammunition at his command (50%) with the option of reloading much faster, even in the dark without removing his eyes from the target. Additionally the more accurate single action type of shooting after the first shot results in quicker hits.
Ammunition
We found the caliber of this weapon (9 mm) to offer some advantages when compared to any .38 caliber revolver of comparable size for several reasons:
1. The same diameter as the .38 caliber and .357 magnum.
2. It can be loaded to pressures of 33,000 psi. Revolvers of comparable weight can stand but half this amount.
3. Regardless of the bullet weight or propellant, the point of impact does not vary as radically as it does with a revolver.
4. Lighter bullet weight (100 gr.) permits more velocity (1380 feet per second [420.6 meters per second]) within working ranges (100 yards [91.4 meters] or less), then loses speed and range rapidly, and further reduces extreme ranges (¾ mile [1.2 kilometer]) and dangerous richochets. Thus, it is safer than the 158 or 200 grain .38 Special service loads (900 F.P.S.) with one and one-half mile [2.4-kilometer] range.
5. Due to the light jacketed bullet at high speed, penetration through auto bodies, seats, and rubber tires is comparable to the .357 Magnum. Yet, the 9 mm with 385 foot pounds of energy will only penetrate eight inches [203.2 millimeters] of flesh.
6. Accuracy—4" [102-millimeter] group at 25 yards [22.9 meters] and adequate at 100 yards [91.4 meters].
7. By substitution of a .30 caliber barrel and nothing else, this becomes a .30 caliber Luger with much more velocity. This could become an advantage in future years when smaller calibers at even greater speeds might come into use. The continuous trend seems to be toward lighter and faster bullets.
Malfunctions
We have had some malfunctions due mainly to three (3) causes:
1. Quality control in production of the gun at the factory.
2. Quality control in production of ammunition used.
3. Improper maintenance.
Cause #1: Smith and Wesson has worked very closely with our Department, and the production quality control problems that were in the gun itself have been corrected.
Cause #2: Probably more malfunctions have been caused by ammunition than any other single cause. Without some refinements on the loading ramp, this gun has trouble feeding exposed lead nose bullets, therefore, we do not recommend that this type of bullet be used for anything except practice. It is hard to control the quality of reloaded ammunition to the requirements of this gun. This again has been one of our problems. Because of this, we insist that only factory manufactured rounds be used for service work. We re-load our own practice ammunition but it is used in range practice only.
Cause #3: (Dry Slide) After the gun has been fired a considerable number of times and burned powder residues begins to accumulate in the gun action, unless the slide has been oiled, the action starts to drag. Here again reloads may fail to eject. We have not found this to be a problem with factory ammunition.
We could go on and on as to the advantages which we believe are numerous over other weapons we tested for our needs. We realize that the noise level of the Model 39 is high, so we have issued ear guards with each pistol to be used on the practice range. We further feel that if absolute dependability were the only consideration, we might favor one of the new service revolvers with a perpetual inspection to insure against malfunction. However, from a practical standpoint, we found that the 9 mm Model 39 will maintain reliability for a longer period and it can be restored more quickly and easily without technical knowledge.
We maintain our own repair section for all state- owned weapons. Any Department furnishing weapons to their personnel should consider having a well-trained gun-smith regardless of whether they have revolvers or semi- automatics. For our Department (1700 men), the added advantage of interchangeable parts and barrels is also desirable.
In conclusion, it should not be implied that the Illinois State Police feel we have found the one and only firearm solution to the needs of police service today. Each police department must examine their own needs and base their decision upon the needs of that agency. There are many very competent guns and ammunitions available and all should be very carefully considered by any Department contemplating a change of firearms. After carefully weighing the practical factors and needs of our Department, we believe the 9 mm Smith & Wesson Model 39 best meets the needs of the Illinois State Police.
