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

[Ale-8(1)]

CALIBER WAR!

EQUIPMENT CONTROVERSY!

TACTICS CRITICISM!

Internet commandos . . .

LMAO

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[sargents1]

I'm sure all of you are aware of this shoot-out where agents were killed. Some were shooting, the then standard, 9mm. The FBI later changed to .40. Many LE agencies also changed to .40.

Ammunition has improved since then, including 9mm and other calibers. But, most LE agencies have not returned to 9mm.

Considering that LEO's have put their trust in larger calibers than 9mm, do you put your trust in 9mm?

(Revised post)

I feel comfortable with using my 9mm for SD and HD. If you hit your target in the vitals it doesnt matter what you are using. A 22lr will kill you deader than dad's old hatband if it hits you in the sternum and puts a hole in you heart.

Speaking of the Miami shootout. From what I have read there were many mistakes that day. Guns left on the seat of the car, bullet proof vests in the trunk etc. It just goes to show you that sometimes Murphy's law rules.

In fact, one thing about that shootout gives me more confidence in my 9mm. There were a lot of misses in that shootout, a lot of non-fatal hits too. With a full-sized high-cap 9mm you have a lot more opportunities to hit your target and that is almost always an advantage. This is why I keep a 20rd mag in my house-gun.

With all that being said, a Glock or an XD in 45ACP carrying 13 or 14 rounds sounds pretty good too.

Just my .02$ as an internet commando.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't see the 9mm as underpowered at all. In addition to that, I feel better carrying my SR9 with 18 rounds over a .45 with 8 or 9. People can talk all day long about just putting one shot in the head or whatever, but I'm pretty sure if the time comes and I'm shooting to save my life, under the stress and fear, I probably won't be shooting all that accurate, so the more rounds I have the better.

Now I have P94 .40, but I only bought that over a 9mm because at the time I bought it, the stupid 10rd magazine limit was still in effect. In that case, I saw no real good reason to carry 11rd total of 9mm over 11 of .40 in the same size gun.

The .40 is a decent round, but I don't see it all that much better than the 9mm, and most .45's have too low of a capacity than I prefer.

 

[Russ7777]

giving these considerations:
* A nine is better than a rock
* A Nine is better than nothing
* A nine has less recoll so you can get your second shot off faster.
So yes I trust my nine, and least until I can afford a .40 :lol:

 

[Hammer]

.

The 50 GI is now commonly available.


.

 

[Pinecone]

I have the "FBI Murders" movie and have watched it many times. The "movie" was said to be so realistic of what actually went down that it is used repeatedly by the FBI and other agencies in their training. The 9mm had nothing to do with the ultimate results. It definitely was "tactics" utilized that went wrong with at least three of the dead/wounded agents not covering their back in the haste to take-out the bad guys. When your running out of ammo, you don't wait for the last shot to be fired before you figure out your "empty". This is "basic" training that we received in the military in small arms training! They also forgot that bullet proof vests only cover the upper torso. That leaves a lot of "target" material to put a suspect down for good. Many, many tactical mistakes by all involved except for the last agent standing without wounds that seemed to "know" what he was doing. In other words, "his" training kicked in at the "right" time!.........................Dick :!:

 

[2ndamd]

Hahaha!

That's funny!

Does the FBI Miami/Dade shootout concern me with carrying a 9mm? Hahaha!

Seriously now for a minute; No. The shootout does not concern me with carrying a 9mm.

Now, ask me if I am concerned with some of the decisions made by the FBI that fateful day? YES!!!!!!!!

It was tactics and not equipment that lost the lives that day.
Maybe no one should carry a revolver either. I mean one Agent got hit in the hand with a .223 round fired from a mini-14. He had a peice of his hand bone embedded into the cylinder of the revolver which caused it to jam. What are the odds of that happening again?

I am glad that we learned so much from the poorly planned and poorly
executed day. I hope we do not have to repeat the BIG mistakes made that day.

ps by the way, carrying a 9mm and .38's that day were NOT the BIG mistakes

With all respect to everybody, my post wasn't: "Evaluate the FBI shootout." I wanted to reference one thing from that shoot out, their findings that they felt they should adopt a more powerful round.

I did state that 9mm ammunition has improved since then. So have a number of handgun ammunitions. But, the FBI and many LE agencies have not returned to 9mm.

So, considering that the FBI changed from 9mm to rounds that they considered more effective, do you feel comfortable using 9mm for self defense? If so, why?

I hope this clarifies everything.

I understand your question. My response is to acknowledge that the FBI made some poor decisions which they later tried to diminish the impact of their poor decision making by incorporating the ammo as being at fault.

They held an inquiry, accepted some tactical errors on their part, and blamed the caliber of choice.

My point was that the FBI to even consider that the ammo had anything to do with the poor results that day, is silly. The bad decisions they made were not related to the choice of equipment they had.

The FBI is lucky no one else was hurt or killed that day.

 

[HuttoAg96]

My experience with what little bit of hunting I have done is that if I shoot a deer in the neck it is dead right there, if I shoot it in the lungs/ heart I will find it within 25 to 30 yards usually where it kicks out. That is using a .30-06 on white tails. Handgun calibers are no where near as powerful as it is. A lot can happen in the time it takes a deer to run 25 yards.

This. I remember the first deer I shot about 6 years ago with a .308 - he was pretty close, maybe 15-20 yards, and I was expecting this big spray of red mist and the deer to fall down. I shot him right through the chest cavity. BANG! He looked at me, then ran 40 yards. My initial reaction was, "WTF?! I know I didn't miss!" That's with a .308, folks. Every deer I have shot since then, the deer has run off and kicked out. If any of you are under the illusion that a hit in the same spot with my 9mm is going to be ineffective whereas a hit in the same spot with your .40 or .45 is going to make the bad guy drop DRT, I suggest you go hunting.

 

[resident]

How many movies have you seen (good ones too, like "Dances with Wolves" the scene in the TeePee where Stands with a Fist shoots the Pawnee with a Henry rifle) where someone is shot and the impact just PHYSICALLY BLOWS them backwards several feet.... and just how much did you actually believe that?

I've shot deer thru the heart and could not locate them within 200 yards!

Individual reactions are very....well.....individual. It depends on motivation, fear, stamina, determination... in every case except where the brain or spinal cord is cut at the base of the brain. And even then muscular contractions can remain in the body. Have you ever seen a chicken with it's head cut off?

 

[Cheesewhiz]

Have you ever seen a chicken with it's head cut off?

In the political section all the time.

 

[SR9 Shooter]

The .40 is a compromised round. I say either "Go with a lot of ammo or go with a lot of stopping power" That means either 9mm with 17+1 or .45/10mm with 7+1 or 8+1

 

[owsi26]

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.

Thanks for the link; It has been awhile since I've read it. For me, the shoot out is just a small part of my questioning the 9mm. I give more weight to the calibers LE agencies use.

Those who have done extensive testing of what round would best help to defend their lives, seem to lean towards larger calibers. Some counter that most of us are not LEO's, therefore we should ignore such studies. I have a hard time doing that.

Once you are in a gun fight, is there really any difference then - compared
to a LEO also fighting for their life. Yes, there is. They have a major advantage due to their training.

So, shouldn't we do everything we can to increase our chances of coming out of that fight alive? I have trouble dismissing the fact that the 9mm isn't used by many American LE agencies.

Some have argued that a heavier gun would be one they wouldn't carry daily. So, a 9mm is better than no gun. I agree. But, there are pistols, in
larger calibers, that weigh little more, or less, than the SR9c's weight.

Weighing on my digital scale, a fully loaded SR9c, with one in the chamber, weighs 1lb, 12.6oz., while a .40 Walther PPS weighs 1lb, 8.9oz. A Glock 36, .45, weighs 1lb, 12.0oz. The PPS, in 9mm is even lighter. I can't find my Glock 27 (.40) right now, but Google says it weighs 1lb, 10.98oz, fully loaded. This seems to imply several things, one of which is the SR9c may be a heavy 9mm.

There we have two .40's and a .45 that weigh LESS than the Ruger SR9c in 9mm! All were loaded with a round in the chamber. Now, if someone wants to carry it because they can shoot better with it, then carry it. But, did you shoot these guns too?

Basically, it comes down to personal choice. I respect one's choice to carry a different gun than I carry and they don't have to prove anything to me. I'm on the fence in regards to whether the SR9c will become my carry gun. But, I have been on this fence for years! I might carry one pistol for a year and then change to another. This is one negative to owning a lot of guns when I know I should stick with one, and train with it more than my other toys!

I do like the SR9c, very much and maybe that is reason enough to carry it. Would I feel a little more 'safe' with a .45, yes I would. But, that is me. I respect, and maybe admire, your being able to stick with a 9mm and not giving thought to carrying a .40 or .45 or 10mm or ........

 

[Anonymous]

You have to remember that when comparing weights loaded, the 9mm has more rounds in the mag too, so it's not just worthless weight.

Like I said earlier, the talk of using a bigger round and relying and good shot placement sounds good on a forum, or even just talking face to face, but I personally feel I'd be shooting at my worst if I was ever trying to defend my life, and for that reason alone, I personally feel better with more smaller bullets, then with less bigger ones. I have no problem admitting I don't think I'd be shooting all that great under those circumstances, and most people that think they would, surely have never tried it.

I'd rethink that stance of more rounds of 9mm over a larger caliber if I knew I was so well trained that under the stress and fear of defending my life, I could stay cool and calm enough to make each shot count. I doubt many people are truly that well trained though, especially run of the mill gun owners.

 

[resident]

Anyone who's seen the video of the Austin TX cop involved in the most recent controversy, as he runs backwards wildly firing at an unarmed, sleeping vehicle occupant and his accomplice will quickly realize that in a panic .... most cops are no different than anyone else when it comes to "shot placement".

He was just lucky the guy he killed was sleeping/sitting in the backseat and never pulled his pistol, and that the "accomplice" was simply running from the scene to get away and not likely actually trying to kill the cop.

The point is, a firefight is a melee and 146 rounds fired in Miami doesn't speak well for 6 or 7 cops against two, trapped fugitives who are desperate. The 223 killed the two cops at point blank, and even then, directly into the chest and two shots to the head. What killed the perp? A single 9MM killed one (delayed tho' it may be) and a single 38 +P killed the other thru the spinal cord.

So it's shot PLACEMENT that counts.

 

[98_1LE]

Sure I trust my 9mm. Cops are in a different situation than the CHL holder. Cops sometimes have to go on the offensive.

In the end, handgun rounds are weak, all of them. But I don't expect to be shooting through a car door or wall trying to hit someone.

 

[owsi26]

Don't forget the five extra magazines, 3 speed loaders, bear spray, "tactical" knife (must be black and scary looking), 1025 lumen flashlight and body armor. And that's just the load out to go get milk at the corner store.

-- Sam

And that black cat might help too!

 

[owsi26]

owsi-You are right-I don't have much faith in the gun rags. I do tend to think all handguns are underpowered. I believe shot placement is more important than caliber. I saw a story the other day about a guy hit 4 times with a .45 that went to the hospital-got took care of & went home.
My experience with what little bit of hunting I have done is that if I shoot a deer in the neck it is dead right there, if I shoot it in the lungs/ heart I will find it within 25 to 30 yards usually where it kicks out. That is using a .30-06 on white tails. Handgun calibers are no where near as powerful as it is. A lot can happen in the time it takes a deer to run 25 yards. I'm not saying a .45 can't be better-it might give a slight edge but I do believe shot placement is more important than caliber. If you disagree that is fine that's just my opinion.

BTW- Cool lyrics Snake somehow I missed that tune.

I don't disagree with you at all. People have put down a number of handgun calibers as a BG took X number of rounds and the only thing that stopped him was a 12 gauge. There have been many cases, especially if drugs were ingested, where BGs took numerous .45's to their chest area and they were still on their feet.

We are already at a disadvantage by using handguns, so shouldn't we use the most powerful caliber that we will carry daily? If that is a .380, 9mm, etc., it is certainty better than no gun!

Another way to look at it is with a smaller caliber, you can have higher round counts, which means more chances to hit vital areas. I said "can" as I have one .40 that has 6 rounds in the magazine.

I do like the advantage of having 17 rounds on a reload. In my case, that will be 34 rounds available on reload as I usually carry at least two extra magazines.

This is the first 9mm that I've purchased. So, I'm not sure what role it will serve for my SD. I need some range time with it. I do love the sights. They are not as easy to acquire as some big dot sights, but they look as if they will be great for accuracy.

 

[Mike J]

I hope you enjoy your new gun.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, shouldn't we do everything we can to increase our chances of coming out of that fight alive? I have trouble dismissing the fact that the 9mm isn't used by many American LE agencies.

While there are many LE agencies that don't use it, there are many who do. Based on the most recent source of information I've been able to find it's the second most commonly purchased round by American LE agencies. Only the .40S&W is used by more LE agencies in the U.S.

Get outside the U.S. and it's an entirely different story. 9mm is the overwhelming choice of military and LE organizations around the world.

Those who have done extensive testing of what round would best help to defend their lives, seem to lean towards larger calibers.

Some do, however there are many recognized experts who agree that the 9mm is a good choice for self-defense.

There we have two .40's and a .45 that weigh LESS than the Ruger SR9c in 9mm!

Come on... Comparing a double-stack 11 round 9mm to a single-stack 7 round .40 or .45 pistol is not at all a reasonable exercise. If you want to get an ACTUAL feel for the difference ,then the comparison should match guns of similar capacity. What are the weights of 11 round .40 and .45 pistols? Or if you want to stick to single-stack guns, what are the weights of 7 round 9mms?

But, that is me. I respect, and maybe admire, your being able to stick with a 9mm and not giving thought to carrying a .40 or .45 or 10mm or ........

First of all, the fact is that many people who have given this topic a LOT of thought have simply come to different conclusions than you have.

In my lifetime I have carried at least 5 different caliber handguns. After considerable research and thought I finally realized that it won't be my caliber choice that saves me in a gunfight. It will be my ability to put accurate rounds downrange in a hurry and under stress.

Fixating on gun/caliber choice as if that's obviously going to be the deciding factor in a gunfight is not productive. There's no need to "admire" someone for carrying a 9mm unless you're talking about admiring their ability to make good decisions based on the confluence of factors affecting their particular choice. You make it sound like choosing a 9mm clearly puts a person in danger--that it proves they're so brave as to warrant the admiration of others. That's ridiculous and it indicates that a disconnect between your opinion and the reality of the terminal performance differences between one service pistol caliber and another. If it were ANYWHERE even NEAR to being as cut and dried as you obviously want it to be, there would be no such thing as a caliber war because we'd all have the answer in front of us in black and white.

The whole reason this debate is so persistent is because there is no definitive answer. The problem is that it's very difficult to defnitively demonstrate an obvious and practically significant terminal performance benefit to one service pistol caliber over another. There are certainly people who have satisfied themselves one way or another, but that's tremendously easier than actually proving something definitively.

So given this situation--no hard evidence or clear cut, definitive answer on terminal performance differences--what approach should be used to make a decision? Simple. Start with this basic rule.

YOU NEVER GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

Stop pretending that there's only ONE variable in this equation and take a look at the WHOLE situation. Terminal performance is ONE factor, but it's not the only issue. Not by any means. In fact, once we are comparing service pistol calibers it's reasonably easy to make the argument that it's not the most important issue.

Other things you MUST consider to make a good decision are:

Shootability--will this gun allow you to put accurate rounds downrange fast? If you can't hit, can't hit fast and can't keep on hitting fast you won't win regardless of the size of the bullet.

Concealability--is this a gun you'll always have when you need it? The large caliber gun at home in the safe won't help you at all.

Capacity--will you be able to keep shooting until the threat is over? Misses are common in gunfights and it frequently takes multiple handgun bullets to stop an opponent. Will you be empty before the attacker is down? What about his accomplice? Criminals like backup just like good guys.

Practice--is this gun one you won't shoot because it's unpleasant to fire? Will ammunition costs limit your practice?

The point is that you can't make a decision like this, one that has MANY contributing factors, as if only one thing is important.

 

[resident]

Yep. James Bond always used a .32 auto. It's like real estate, the three most important things: Location, Location, and Location.
(That's why all shots returned should be in groups of three.) :lol: