Well, as a cop for seven years I’ve carried .40 S&W for the majority of my career except for a small period when I carried a .45 GAP. Well, soon enough that will come to an end as my agency will be issuing us GLOCK 17 Gen4s. Alas, as a .40 S&W fan this is a heartbreaker for me. I will be stepping down in caliber. (I own 9mm pistols so its all good actually.)
I have been noticing on numerous industry reports that a number of agencies are dropping the .40 S&W and going back to 9mm or .45 ACP. Anyone here going through the same transition? Any agency you folks work for dropping one caliber and adopting another?
I feel confident with a 9mm just as I do with any other service cartridge for general self defense but the .40 S&W serve me well due to its ability to penetrate a barrier like auto glass which in my line of work is a very good thing. I just feel that my agency is doing this for two reasons. It’s cheaper and the non gun folks complain about the recoil. Alas… most agencies don’t listen to gun folks or follow real information in regards to self defense and ballistics.
There is an increasingly common view that there is no or little difference between the common service calibers. This allows folks to think that a premium 9mm is the same thing as a premium 40 or 45. Given that performance is the same, then other factors inform the decision.
My personal view is that departments are dropping back to 9mm to save money. 9mm ammo is cheaper so you can buy more in a world of shrinking budgets. Since 9mm is easier to shoot, agencies can spend less money on initial and un-service training.
I would agree with that except barrier penetration performance is an important factor in my caliber selection. I constantly see training and equipment pushed back due to budget constraints and yet stupid stuff is done all the time. We just purchased a 2012 Dodge Dodger Pursuit Package and yet not a single patrol officer can’t use it. It’s use is restricted to command staff. Why the hell did they get a new tricked out patrol vehicle when they never patrol? They can find funds for that yet they can’t fund us for proper training or equipment.
After firing 20 rounds per caliber into each of the following: Bare gelatin, heavy clothing on gelatin, Steel (car door) over bare gelatin, laminated glass (windshield) to bare gelatin.
.40 - penetration average 13.3", Expanded average .652"
9mm- penetration average 13.5", Expanded average .582"
Muzzle Energy
.40 419 ft-lb
9mm 392 ft-lb
Overall, a very slight advantage to .40. But worth the extra recoil, expense, and reduced capacity? Not to me. I choose to carry the Glock 17 over the Sig 229…
You can draw your own conclusions. Just thought I would share our test data.
At my first agency (I was a reserve) we carried 9mm. The remaining 15 years I have been on this job it has been the .40 S&W. I will agree that 9mm is cheaper and easier to shoot, but I’m fine with .40 and don’t see an overwhelming need for departments to jump back to the 9mm just because.
The last few OIS incidents at my department have all involved shots through vehicle glass or sheet metal and our 180 grain Ranger-T rounds have performed very well. I don’t know how 9mm would have performed (probably just fine), but I don’t see a need for us to switch right now.
We carried 9mm +P+ the first 14 years of my career, which sucked bilge water. In 1999, we transitioned to .40 S&W 180g HP, which has a good performance record with my agency.
The current trend is to go back to 9mm. With cartridge development over the past 10 years, I believe that 9mm is the way to go.
My employer uses 9mm as a standard. My unit is transitioning from .40S&W to .45ACP. Couldn’t be happier to get away from the .40S&W. I would have felt confident with 9mm. Our own lengthy ballistic testing showed very little differences in barrier performance, so many start weighing other aspects of the equation, which IMO is valid.
I think it is about money. Hell, just about every decision these days is about money. The way things are going departments will be carrying ball before long citing increased penetration.
I’m issued a P229R in .357 Sig. I’d much prefer it chambered in 9mm. I ended up buying a .40 barrel just to make it more cost effective to practice with. I don’t think the .357 Sig offers anything over a 124 grain +p except for recoil and muzzle flash.
Our chief wanted us to move to standard issue sidearms about 4 year back. Older guys would be grandfathered and new hires would get the standard issue. I picked the Glock 17. I prefer the 9mm to the 40 for reasons gone over in this thread. Plus it is cheaper and at that time the 9mm’s were more reliable than the 40’s. We have had good service from them. I carried my Wilson 1911 for a while and then traded to a Glock 17 as well. For starters I wanted to show I had faith in the gun I picked for everyone and secondly I no longer wanted to carry a low cap high maintenance gun on patrol. I have carried a lot of guns in 14 years on the job. But the 17 is my favorite.
Pat
Allowing officers more caliber selection to fit there needs can be a good thing, allowing the shooter to choose the best fit for them. Unfortunately I perceive this push is being driven by cost and as a quick fix to get people to qualify due to lack of training Many departments are taking a machete to training now as is mine. I see this as a band aid, those who don’t train will suck with a 40 and 45, and odds are they will still suck, though a little less with 9mm. On the flip side good shooters who choose to convert can be even better and have more bullets in the gun.
Generally I see students sucking a lot less with the 9mm vs the .40 or .45. While I would like to see more training I think the 9mm is the best choice in my opinion.
Pat
As I said earlier it is easily a money issue. With a lessening budget they always cut training yet still manage to blow funds on stupid projects l like command staff getting new vehicles while patrol gets stuck with ten year old clunkers. I don’t feel underarmed with 9mm; I just hate the reasoning for the switch to it. Slashing the budget but still need to get folks to qual, issue them a 9mm and get it done. Forget actually training them or teaching then proper fundamentals jut give them a firearn that recoils less and pass 'em through the qual range as quick as you can.
Now I am not in favor of frivolous spending by upper command staff at the sacrifice of the guys and gals on the street but budget crunches are the reality that LE in general is facing.
I also agree that nothing replaces quality training and the ability to practice and that is the optimal in an ideal world. We are far from living in the ideal situation in LE. Never has been that “ideal” world in the nearly 24 years that I have been doing it. So if we look at a pure performance increase and knowing that being able to hit what your aiming at and shot placement being king, it does make sense to provide officers with a pistol that instills confidence and is a better performing pistol for many shooters. Even if you have tons of money and endless hours of training, there will be certain individuals that would be better suited with a 9mm no matter what. Heck I can perform extremely well with a .40, probably better than the greater majority of those in LE, but I would still opt for a 9mm to eek out that extra bit of performance. Either 9mm or .45acp are my choices. But budget aside, you, me or anyone else has personal preferences. Take away our caliber of choice and anyone would be upset and looking to blame something / someone. Just something to consider.
We currently carry Glock 22 gen 3’s pushing HyraShok’s in 165gr. We are switching to Glock 21 gen4’s loaded with 230gr HST’s. We are also being issued Streamlight TLR-1 HL’s. We are just waiting for the guns, lights, and holster/mag pouches to come in.
