Does the famous FBI shoot-out concern you by carrying a 9mm.

[2ndamd]

I almost forgot!

The FBI screwed up big time that day. They held an inquiry and decided it was the ammunitions fault.

LOL!!!

Hahaha!

Nice try boys but, no cigar. You done messed up real bad; and no blaming it on the ammo will not bring back the agents you lost b/c you made tactical screw-ups.

 

[owsi26]

Well said John.
Today there are 9mm loads that approach or equal 357 mag loads available.
the FBI had two 870 at the scene one was used effectively by Agent Mirales After he was severely wounded by a .223 round to his right forearm.
The final shots were from an Agent Mirales' 686 4" duty gun 158 .38 LSWCHPs.
The round that "failed" was a Silver tip- state of the art at the time, but too much was asked of that one bullet- many rounds were fired into the back of the car seats they failed to penetrate, as would most 45 and 40s.

Would you mind sharing which loads have .357 performance?

 

[owsi26]

I definately read that the FBI adopted the 10mm, but they quickly determined that many female agents could not handle the recoil. The 10mm. This lead to the .40.

You may very well have read that. I've seen it several times myself. But it's not true no matter how many times it's been printed or repeated. Things don't become true simply because they're repeated frequently. The FBI never issued full power 10mm ammunition and therefore there was no opportunity for them to find out that "many female agents could not handle the recoil."

The FBI had no part in developing the .40S&W, in fact they continued issuing 10mm pistols for some time after the .40S&W became available.

As for the shoot-out, autopsies did show that some 9mm rounds were on target for vital organs, but they didn't penetrate deeply enough.

No, there was only a SINGLE 9mm round didn't penetrate
deeply enough in their estimation and they chose to focus nearly exclusively on that single circumstance. Ironically, based on the autopsy information I've been able to find, it seems that the round probably penetrated enough tissue to meet the FBI recommended specification. The reason it didn't quite go deeply enough into Platt's chest wasn't that it lacked penetration but rather because it had to penetrate several inches of Platt's upper arm and then enter the chest already expanded.

As for my stating that LE agencies are going back to the .45, this was an article, in a gun magazine,
written by (I think) a LE agency.

First of all "going back to the .45" incorrectly implies that the .45 was once the most popular round in LE. Most officers were carrying .38 spl or .357Mag revolvers when the high capacity autopistol began to make inroads inot LE. Initially, high capacity autopistol was more or less synonymous with 9mm but the development of the .40S&W changed things. So before we even get into whether or not LE is switching to the .45, it's important to understand that it's inaccurate for anyone to say that LE is "going back to the .45" because they were never
there to begin with.

Ok, with that said, there may be an LE agency (or even several) switching to the .45, but I'm not aware of any evidence of a general trend in that direction. If you have some evidence that supports such a trend I would be interested to see it.

There is nothing wrong with my thinking... Did I not think that a human being, with his on skill sets, etc. would be the one pulling a trigger?

The point is that there are many things that will play into who wins and who loses and it's unlikely that the calibers chosen
will play a part.

When a person starts talking about shooting it out against a 10mm with a 9mm it's demonstrating that how they are thinking about the confrontation is fundamentally flawed. It's roughly similar to asking a football coach which brand of helmet you need to pick in order to win the superbowl. Could it possibly play a role? It might, but it's not what really makes the
difference.

In a document on caliber selection, one FBI expert made comment that when picking one service pistol caliber over another, caliber choice might make a difference in 1 shooting out of a hundred in terms of terminal performance benefit.

We like to pretend that what gun we pick or what caliber we choose is going to make us safe or give us a significant advantage. It simply isn't true. That is the result of not thinking straight. It is the result of not
wanting to take responsibility for our own safety.

In ancient times warriors often believed that their weapons were imbued with supernatural powers. While we are above talking about a weapon's supernatural powers these days, we can't leave the basic concept behind. We still want to believe that our weapon will save us. It won't. What will save us is our skills and mindset--the product of our practice and training.

Pick a reliable weapon--there are a huge number of options out there that will serve admirably. Pick a caliber that will penetrate to FBI recommended depths with expanded ammunition--any service pistol caliber, including
9mm, will do the trick. Then spend your money, effort and time on practice, learning and training.

If you have also read several times about the FBI's adoption of the 10mm, then to the .40, how do you know that what you read, that stated otherwise, is true?

The article (that I'm now looking for) that I read that stated LE agencies are going "back" to the .45, stated it that way.

About this not thinking straight again, I'll spell it out for you. Consider a situation that EVERTHING is equal other than calibers. Consider that both shooters are scoring hits. That is what I'm refering to when I said I would hate to be in a shoot out with a .45 or 10mm, when I have a 9mm.

I think most would agree that a .45 and 10mm, in general, create a larger wound cavity. Now that most all SD rounds meet the FBI's penetration standards, then in my scenario, I would rather be shooting the .45 or 10mm.

I do understand what you are saying. A person with excellent knife throwing skills could win against someone with a .50 belt feed machine gun, if he threw first or the machine gun operator's initial shots were misses. One could argue such scenarios forever.

I thought my post was simple. The FBI DID indeed look at their ammo choice, along with many other things. They DID switch from 9mm to .40 at some point in time after the shoot out.

I asked what people thought about today's 9mm ammunition, for SD, compared to larger calibers. Instead you chose to disect, analyze and critique everything I said. Perhaps it is you who isn't thinking right as I simply asked a question with my thoughts included.

I thought most would get what I meant when I said I would hate to be shooting 9mm against .45 or 10mm. I think most did understand.

 

[owsi26]

Johnksa: Read the first part of your last post to me. You said the FBI never issued 10mm ammunition, so there was no time for someone to complain about the recoil. (My words, not a qoute.)

Then, in your next paragraph, you said that the FBI used 10mm for a long time before they went to .40.

What gives? Are you not "thinking straight?"

 

[blume357]

Caliber War!

CALIBER WAR!

 

[owsi26]

My copy and paste is acting up on my iPhone.

John, you said:

"The FBI never issued full power 10mm ammunition and therefore there was no opportunity to find out that "many female agents could not handle the recoil."

Then you said:

"The FBI had no part in developing the .40SW, in fact they continued using 10mm pistols for some time after the .40SW became available."

Are you not thinking straight???

 

[owsi26]

Apologies again. Safari locked up and I had to reset my iPhone. I didn't see that I did a somewhat double post. But it was worth repeating twice!

 

[owsi26]

Caliber War!

CALIBER WAR!

LOL! It seems to be going that way! I just asked a question! People get mighty loyal to a caliber, it seems.

I would still like more input, but my meter is now at .40 and moving up to .45. Where I started in the 1970's with my first handgun, a Colt Commander LW - .45. It still looks brand new after many rounds and my carrying it for years. I'm leaning towards a different .45 though. Perhaps one I don't yet have = excuse to buy another gun with tax refund!

 

[leejack]

To address the original question:

No, the FBI shootout is completely and totally irrelevent to my decision on 9mm carry. Murphy can show up at anytime.

Practice with your SR9c and go for it. You aren't going to be outgunned in the parking lot of Walgreens.

Lee

 

[Snake45]

To address the original question:

No, the FBI shootout is completely and totally irrelevent to my decision on 9mm carry. Murphy can show up at anytime.

Practice with your SR9c and go for it. You aren't going to be outgunned in the parking lot of Walgreens.

Lee

+1 on all that. Leejack, a fountain of common sense, as usual. :wink:

 

[tookalisten]

I have started carrying a 9 mm almost exclusively now. Mainly because the ammo is more readily available and cheaper than any other calibers I own; therefore, I practice MUCH more with it. So, I carry what I am comfortable with and do not think about caliber at all.

 

[NucSub]

As briefly mentioned at least once in this thread.
No I don't worry about carrying a 9mm, .38spl, or even a .380. My biggest problem is just to have a gun on my person or accessable to me should I need it.
I am not a LEO so I am not required to agressively seek out trouble. I have the option of watching it pass me by. My job is to protect myself and my family, not protect and serve.
My hat's off to all military, LEO, and emergency personel. They are the ones whose job is to run into the trouble.

 

[Mike J]

owsi here is a link to a brief about the Miami shootout. http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm In all honesty it has been a while since I read about this but as others have said the caliber used by the agents was not the real problem. There were tactical mistakes made that I believe had a bigger impact on the outcome.
Before you make a decision based on what you read in a magazine article please think about this. The gun rags make their money from advertising. Their objective is to get you to buy their advertisers product. There will always be an article trying to persuade you that what you have is not enough & you need something else. That is how they take money.
I own a couple of fullsize .40's & a subcompact 9mm. I would trust either caliber to work with quality ammunition. I believe between 9mm, .40 & .45 the quality of the ammunition used is probably more important than which caliber.

 

[bub]

owsi26, I think that you are missing JohnKSa's point. I also think that some of your own reasoning is a little flawed.

If you are in a shootout and both parties are equally skilled and equally motivated, then it basically comes down to who makes the first shot that connects with a vital area. Stories abound of people with bullet wounds in non-vital areas (arms and legs) not even noticing in the heat of battle and going on to win. Stories abound about people having what turns out to be fatal wounds who also go on to win. In fact, the Miami Shootout comes to mind with this, too. I seem to remember that one of the perps had a shot that perforated his heart or tore the aorta or something similar. Fatal shot, but he was motivated enough to carry on with what he was doing for several minutes.

Also, I seem to remember reading several years ago that the Silvertips performed exactly like they were intended to perform. I seem to remember reading that several if the Silvertips were recovered just under the skin on the far side of the body from where the perps were shot. Bullets penetrated the torso, expended their energy and stopped just short of complete penetration- just about ideal performance, if you discount the fact that they failed to make a second hole. What they didn't do is to hit a structure vital enough to immediately end the fight, which basically means the brain or spinal cord. That is hardly the bullet's fault, don't you think?

The blame for that day rests solely in the FBI. They knew that Platt and Maddox were violent and I have read that they had a pretty good idea that there were long guns present. They failed to wait for backup and they failed to notify local authorities that they were even in the area, much less that they were going to do something like this. BAD PLANNING, pure and simple.

There was also poor training, or at least poor performance, on the part of the individual agents. Several drew their guns and put them under their thigh while driving but before the stop for quicker access. I have read that Platt or Maddox, whomever was driving, rammed several of the FBI's cars. During the collisions, the agents who had their guns under their thigh for quick access lost their guns and had to carry on with backup guns. While I don't think this had much to do with the outcome, I have yet to meet anyone who can shoot their backup as well as their primary gun. This may be a small contributing factor to all the missed shots by the FBI, but I honestly don't think it played much part. It's just an example of poor training, that they drew their guns and put them somewhere basically out of their control before the dance even started. If they had poor training there, who knows what other training was poor or what effect it had on the outcome?

They also had VERY poor coordination and typical FBI arrogance. By failing to notify ANYONE local that they were there, they robbed themselves of any chance for backup. Who knows how the outcome might have been different if they had a few more shooters with them, especially if the shooters had access to long guns? By failing to notify ANYONE that they were there and were going to pull the operation, they robbed themselves of the opportunity to find out and men died.

Last but not least, because of their attitudes, the agents were beaten before the incident even kicked off. Platt and Maddox went into the fight with the attitude that they were going to win. The FBI went into the fight with the attitude that it was just another job. Because of this, Platt and Maddox basically won. They died, but before they did, they wiped out the FBI's force. Quite a few of the agents lived, but they were worthless as a fighting force after the incident was over. The survivors were wounded and shocked that the fight turned out the way that it did and, had there been a 3rd bad guy, I honestly think that ALL the agents would have been killed. Looking at it as a small unit action and taking the motivations of the parties out of it, it was a classic small unit action. A force of two men managed to hold off and at least psychologically defeat a much larger force. The decision to blame the ammo was a whitewash by the FBI to cover up their own incompetence and bumbling.

IMO, I think that the handgun and ammo choices were the smallest factor, if they were even a factor at all. Handguns are notoriously poor stoppers, no matter what the caliber. Cops carry handguns for one reason and one reason only- convenience. In the course of a normal day, it's a LOT easier to carry a handgun than it is to carry a long gun. Caliber wars make absolutely no sense at all because, when you get right down to it, there's not a bunch of difference at all in the performance of handgun ammo. 9mm, .40, .45, they all perform about the same, statistically. The best you can do is to train as best you can, choose the best ammo you can and plan for the bad guy to not drop when hit and have a backup plan for this. Keep shooting till the threat is neutralized, no matter what you are carrying, and boogie out of there ASAP.

In the interest of full disclosure, I carry a Glock 21 in .45 when on duty at my PD job. Having said that, I would have no problem carrying a 9mm and, in fact, carry a 2 1/4" SP101 when off duty. It's not about the hardware, it's about the user.

Bub

 

[leejack]

It's not about the hardware, it's about the user.

Bub

BINGO!

Lee

 

[MAC702]

Two 9mm's in the chest cavity will probably beat a single .45 also. And I'll wager that two 9mm's can be fired as a controlled pair slightly more quickly than two .45's. A look at USPSA or IDPA competition confirms that.

Yes, I still carry a .45 or .357, but I'll admit that those who carry a 9mm (in the same size sidearm) have an advantage in speed of second shot, even if some might consider this to be negligible.

If your training is to fire a controlled pair before performing a BDA (Battle Damage Assessment) then the 9mm makes up for hole size a bit.

As for penetration, I'm trying to find the numbers for Winchester PDX-1 Bonded loads to compare across the board. IIRC, this is also the current FBI ammo choice.

Interestingly, some groups WANT penetration more than other groups might. Texas DPS (which includes their Highway Patrol and Rangers) moved to the .357 Sig to regain the penetration they lost when they went away from the .357 Magnum to the .45 ACP.

Also, there is something to be said for less penetration, ESPECIALLY for us private citizens who will extremely rarely have the need to engage a bad guy who is behind cover. If they are behind cover, it probably means we are fast getting somewhere else and have no duty to stop or apprehend. I would much rather leave a wounded BG than a dead bad guy with wounded bystander behind him.

 

[Ruger61]

I've carried all three calibers in question. I found the .40 to be a bit "snappy" for me. The .45 (In a Kimber Pro Carry Two) was an excellent round but expensive to practice with.

I've had a P95 for some time and am now wearing a SR9c. I went back to the 9mm because it is a good round, it's lighter (in the SR9c), and cheaper to practice with.

And the more I can practice the better off I am should a real need ever arise.

 

[wildbill846]

It's funny that people use a gunfight of mostly .38 specials to criticize the 9mm. Only 3 of the 8 agents shot a 9mm. Wasn't the reason for the FBI switch to the 10mm as a result of a search to replace the revolvers primarily? If I remember correctly, they were actually testing 9mm and .45 automatics and the 10mm was a last minute add-in to the competition.

 

[tango6]

I carry a snubbie 38 spl loaded with some +P HP's. I fire 25-50 rounds every week at the range and am extremely confident with my accuracy at the range. however, when you add in the fact of someone else shooting back at you, accuracy suffers and you hope that training and practice prevails.
I have seen a young combat infantryman in nam go thru a 15 minute fire fight pulling the trigger on a long time empty rifle and he never knew. fear and adrenaline are an amazing thing.
carry any gun stoked with quality ammo and practice practice practice.

 

[wyzardd]

"That's why I carry a .45"

Only one?

you won't find me arguing against packing a .45 or two

Yup, just one. Shot placement is everything. Since I don't base my carry plans on an expectation to take out a group of banditos knocking over a major bank, reloads are for people that don't have confidence in their abilities. :lol:

Maybe I'll start carrying a T/C in .30-30...