Correct.

The “gun selection” step you missed was that when S&W first handed the FTU folks several prototype 5” 1006 models to test, they were fired a few times and quickly handed back with instructions to shorten the slide/barrel to “Commander-length” and add a Sig-style, frame-mounted decocking lever instead of the snaggy slide-mounted lever. It apparently caught one too many times on the inner cloth of expensive suit coats.  Stylin’ but not smilin’.

S&W returned to the FTU with several prototype 1076 models (4.25” barrel/decocking lever) and also optioned the same gun for other depts/agencies with a traditional S&W slide mounted lever (the model 1066).

The 1076 was tested by the FTU and then adopted for its field agents.  The duty ammo initially authorized was Federal’s diluted 10mm “FBI-Lite” 180grn JHP @ 980fps or thereabouts.

Federal also made the first bonded JHP for the Bureau, which was a 190grn bullet @ about 1050fps. Although designed ostensibly for use in the Bureau’s 10mm HK-made subguns, I knew senior agents who preferred this ammo for their 1076 pistols (due to the bonded bullet and the slightly higher velocity)  - apparently without objection from the FTU.

Right, the Gold Dot .45 is also an effective round.

And the regular Joes shoot more than the average FBI hire, take training classes on their own, and more regular Joes can handle the larger calibers (45, 10mm) more proficiently than FBI agents.

Hence, even during a 9mm ammo shortage, you can still find 10mm and .45 ammo, although it'll be consistently pricier than the mini-meter.

Mkay.

Incorrect...as usual.

Does that apply to FBI HRT? They don't seem to have a problem with 9mm.

Training means once a year qualifications, way too many people think they train all day every day and most of them aren't gun guys.

Wrong.

Worse, you know your wrong.

For most depts/agencies, yes. ... Twice a year quals at best for some.

Back in the day, Chicago PD used to do quals four times a year due to all the OISs, but I don’t know if they still do.

Apart from the ammo-shortages, cops aren’t allowed to shoot felons anymore.

@JButlerHickok You hit the mail on the head.

Most people don’t realize that what the FBI is best at is self promotion. I’ve been part of plenty of joint operations and the FBI is always the clowns of the circus. No problem solving ability, horrible tactics and the worst firearms handling I’ve ever seen.

Over the years, I’ve seen a ton of pistol shooting victims, a dozen or more shotgun shooting victims and about a dozen rifle shooting victims. In all of those incidents involving pistols, the only time calibre mattered was when it was .25apc or .22lr. On several occasions (20% of the time) a person survived a heart or head shot from a .25 or .22 that would have killed them or incapacitated them with a different caliber.

9-40-45-357 have no noticeable difference in anatomical effectiveness. Period.

On penetration depth, we have found that with duty rounds, over penetration tends to be the largest problem due in large part to the FBI standards. We already advocate for #1 buck shot due to less penetration and are beginning to issue #4 buck for certain situations.

I carry a 9mm and advocate for 9mm duty guns not because they are more effective than the other options. I believe they are a better choice for departments because the other calibers aren’t any more effective,  cost more per round (when you buy 1m Per year) and 99% of our shooters are more accurate with it.

Don’t buy into the bullshit, pick a gun that you can shoot and afford to train with. Your calibre choice won’t be nearly as important as your speed and accuracy.

The biggest thing I see right here. It’s more effective in the hands of those using it because they can more effectively put rounds on target.

My take
The FBI testing protocol is one metric in a long list of things that one individual or agency can use. They have updated it through the years which is good. However like anything bullet selection is give and take penetration shouldn’t be the only thing one looks at just like expansion shouldn’t be or raw power or speed. You can design a bullet that will meet one metric but may not excel in all of them or you can work at getting a consistent performer in lots of categories but it’s going to depend on the needs of the person selecting it or the needs of those it’s being selected for. Bottom line none of it matters if the person using it can’t put them where they are needed and repeat that process.

Curios you said over penetration was a issue in what you’d seen would you care to elaborate a bit?

@Gunnie357

Sure. Typing this on my phone so please excuse the typos. When I say over penetration is an issue, I’m talking about a two fold problem.  

1: Projectiles exiting a target with enough force to still be lethal (some even through common construction walls)

2: Projectiles exiting a target without transferring efficiently transferring available energy into said target.

It’s obvious to everyone why # 1 is a problem. Knowing your target and what’s behind it is a vital rule for that reason. However, bullet selection goes a long way to preventing unintended danger to innocents. Selecting a .25acp as an entry gun for high risk warrant service would be a poor choice due to under penetration. Selecting a .50bmg for the same task would be an obvious risk for over penetration. The problem comes from the FBI insistence on depth penetration set at 18” minimum. In reality, this depth does not correlate to real world shootings. Consider the vast difference of construction between a varmint round and a round designed for moose hunting. The minimum depth for the moose is significant and utilizing the same bullet on a ground hog would leave a .30 calibre hole instead of meat soup. Not to mention the down range potential of the moose round after exiting the ground hog. However, using a varmint round on a moose is a good way to get stomped, which brings me to #2.

#2 the energy that carries a bullet beyond a target is wasted. Think about it like a baseball. Imagine two scenarios where you are hit by a major league pitch.

In the first scenario you catch a 90mph pitch to the ear. Your head does not move and the ball bounces 6 feet back towards the pitcher.

In the second scenario, you cqtch the same pitch but this time your head is slightly angled toward the catcher and the ball hits you again in the ear but this time the ball flies straight back over the catcher and lands 12 rows behind home plate.

Which one sounds worse? Because the ball had the energy to travel further in the second scenario, your head didn’t have to absorb as much energy. You’re definitely not walking off either but I’d take the second any day over the first.

Bullet designs are a balancing act between penetration and expansion. Speed, weight and construction can be optimized to ensure maximum effectiveness within a certain window. The window or happy medium has been adopted by the industry to meet the FBI standard.

Our stance, is that researching gunshot trauma wounds (in person) provides a different picture of penetration requirements than the FBI requires.  If you could magically select a bullet that transferred all of its energy into the target (maximizing internal trauma)  and reliably reached vital organs under the widest variety of conditions without exiting the target, you would have a “perfect” bullet. In actual shootings, many of the marketed self defense / duty rounds that meet the FBI standards fail to reach their full potential before exiting the target (person).

The reality is that the FBI has the biggest budget (your taxes) to spend on research and because of it, smaller agencies rely on their recommendation.

Larry sums it up nicely at 8:29.

I wrote that long reply and didn’t really answer your question. We have repeatedly seen good effectively placed rounds on target that have exited and carried enough energy beyond the target to penetrate multiple walls and remain lethal. I was on scene of a shooting last month where several rounds entered a suspect end exited through vitals before traveling through an exterior wall and embedding inside of the second interior drywall. In our experience, the leftover energy would have been better served staying within the target.

ETA: saw the response

Energy dump is rubbish.

You refer to bullets remaining lethal after exiting and yet they weren't. They might have been. But they weren't.

After killing a lot of deer, yotes, etc the absolute fastest killers were rounds that destroyed a lot of stuff inside and blew chunks out the other side. Which is another reason why I preferred a shotgun in Iraq.

Every round fired caries a certain amount of energy, many are designed to utilize that energy to maximize tissue damage. By including the 18” minimum penetration standard, many of these rounds do not perform optimally in human targets.

Are you implying that a round that doesn’t hit a person is not potentially lethal and therefore not dangerous? Collateral damage in a war zone is considerably different than CONUS urban environments. Injuring innocent by standards is a major concern for us as the majority of our shootings occur within close proximity of innocent persons.

Your last point is an agreement with my statement. You prefer rounds that leave a giant gaping hole on the other side. You would not want a round that fails to expand sufficiently and leaves the coyote with a .22” exit wound. Your chosen coyote round is designed to transfer the majority of its energy through expansion or fragmentation to maximize tissue damage within the appropriate depth parameters for your target (coyote). Shoot the same coyote with a green tip 5.56 and tell me what the wound looks like (perhaps why you preferred the shotgun overseas)

When it comes to human targets, I argue that the FBI standard has left us with rounds designed for elk when we’re really hunting white tails.

I will concede that the baseball analogy falls apart as the energy transfer causes trauma in a less measurable way than a bullet wound.

We had some of their folks give the 9mm caliber change presentation, or whatever they call it, to some of us DOD folks.

Sounds like it was a confluence of factors, and one of the rare times when a bunch of their different sections - tactical operations, firearms training, tactical training, were all on the same page in terms of wanting to move on from .40. Some of the problems they had with .40 are pretty well publicized - the Glock 23s didn't work with weapon mounted lights, leading to mass usage of Glock 22s, which weren't very suitable for concealed carry, etc.

So their justification boiled down to "trauma surgeons can't tell what pistol caliber someone is shot with", and "new magic 9mm bullets". What was eye opening to me - at that time I was a pretty active competitive shooter, 3 gun, IDPA, IPSC, was what total bullshit the numbers they offered as justification for the change were. They claimed that they had a 9mm bullet that was expanding larger than .45 hollow point - something like ~.7" for recovered diameter, while still penetrating equal to the heavy .40SW loads, so 18+ inches. There was a fair amount that seemed legit - intermediate barrier performance, heavy cotton performance, and they would show the recovered bullets, which really weren't expanding, but were penetrating to the depths they thought were sufficient. But it really boiled down to "magic 9mm does mo better, mo bullets better, mo switch." And I actually got to ask their guys how this magic 9mm technology had somehow left .40 and .45 bullets behind - how was it that a .355" 147 grain projectile was somehow able to expand larger than a bullet which already started 20% or so precent larger, while carrying more weight, even though it was believed that there was an inverse relationship between projectile diameter and penetration depth. Why weren't their charts showing .40 180 grain Speer Gold Dot bullets expanding to .9 and also penetrating 16"+?. You could actually see the frustration on their faces, because it cut to the hearth of the whole spectacle. Their answer was just that .40 and .45 projectiles were already as advanced as they could get, the new "magic 9mm" improved on everything. But those figures (.7", 16+" penetration) comprised the executive summary that got shown to us at DOD and a bunch of other agencies, and the numbers were bullshit.

I don't believe a 147 grain bullet launched at ~1050 (these are standard pressure loads) could expand to .7 inches, and still penetrate to 18 or so inches. .40 can't really do that. .45 can barely do that consistently, and both of those cartridges have a ton more energy.

I'm not a 9mm basher, I think it has its place. But  some of these arguments are a slippery slope, and the new .30 Super Carry isn't the last foray into smaller, hyper capacity rounds. I think we'll soon have folks championing that round because "Doctors can't tell the difference". I still think .40 SW is the pinnacle of LE type loads, because it does everything a little better, at the expense of added recoil and moderately truncated capacity. I think agencies should give their folks choices, which is a lesson DOD hasn't really learned outside of some small circles. Pistols stop fights through blood and oxygen loss, which is a slow process. Somehow that leads some folks to think that .25 ACP and .45 ACP are roughly consistent...

And an upper mid-range 180grn 10mm XTP-HP (@ 1275fps) will meet or beat both of those stats.

You're now conflating missed shots and rounds exiting bad guys. They are not the same thing. Just because a bullet can go through a wall it doesn't mean it's lethal. I mean if it goes through an eye cavity then ok.

This is what you said "By including the 18” minimum penetration standard, many of these rounds do not perform optimally in human targets"

18" is the maximum. Not the minimum. I understand mistakes but you're whole premise is that bullets leaving bad guys are killing others regularly. If you could gives multiple examples then you'd make a much better argument.

Greentip actually does pretty good on yotes. The most impressive non varmint bullet I've used on yotes is a 170gr swc at 1200fps from a. 357 pistol. It's results are similar to 250gr swc at 1000-1200fps from a .45. shattering both shoulders and spraying meat and bone for a dozen yards. Even when bone isn't hit a heavy fast swc works better than hollow points.

I know animals aren't people but I'm limited

My EDC is a .357mag with 158xtp @1200 because I'm confident in it getting to the vitals. I would be just as concerned about what's behind my target if I was shooting 125gr sjhp @1400fps.

Well if "Q" said it, then the loyal "have to trust the plan" right?

Seriously, the S&W 1076 has a HUGE & HEAVY Weapon and the official issued FBI 10mm "lite" offered no real advantage Vs. .40 S&W which could fit into a more compact and higher capacity 9mm format (Glock 22 & Glock 23)

The Switch to 9mm ammo is about getting the best accuracy results from non-shooters & others who are not firearms attuned or experiences.  Ultimately - ONLY HITS COUNT and it is easier to get hits with a 9mm than .40 or .45 (less recoil & more cartridges)

Statistical evidence says ALL Handgun rounds (9mm, .357 Sig,  .40S&W, 10 lite & .45 ACP) are all about equally effective (which is to say not very compared to a shotgun or carbine.

9mm ultimately outlasted the upstarts like .40 & .357 to "Win" the auto pistol cartridge race.

BIGGER_HAMMER

If you’d be willing to send me the data of the over penetration issues I would appreciate it.

The goal is to have a complete white paper prepared for release in time for the NTOA conference next year. We will likely be reviewing shootings for another 9 months until we meet our docs variables. Some of the things we’re waiting to confirm require more rare circumstances (odd trajectories/ bullet construction/ distances) but with murders and asssalts skyrocketing, it won’t take long.

What we’ve reviewed so far, has lead us to reevaluate some of our ammo selection and caused us to reach out to some people in the industry to assist.

None of us expect the results to be earth shattering, just like the difference between 9-40-45 is minimal. However, we have found enough differences for us to change our ammo recommendations in long guns. My hypothesis is well only see a small percentage of potential improvement on handguns if we see any at all.  

Nothing we find will change the shooting world forever but we may find ways to improve our effectiveness and reduce potential hazards in small measures.

My apologizes for typos and misspeaking, I’m writing these replies during short breaks from teaching a class out of town.

I’ll probably punch out of this thread until I can submit the final paper. I’m not able to convey all of the information effectively and I’m probably just disrupting the thread.

That's not exactly true. People have gotten tripped up in court before because they decided to use rubber bullets, bean bag rounds and rubber buckshot, saying "I didn't want to kill him." You can't use a firearm in self-defense without intent to employ force that will cause death or great bodily harm. So, for self-defense with a firearm, whether you're LE or not, you have to have the intent to cause the attacker death or great injury. Claiming self-defense in court is an admission of all elements of an offense, just with the key difference being asserting justification.

This doesn't mean you can do an anchor shot to make sure he's dead. Death is an implicit risk of self-defense with a firearm. You have to be willing to take that risk to successfully claim it in court.

How often does the Glock 22 need to be rebuilt? After how many arounds, typically?

How much ammo do they have stored? I know its impossible to give a number but any description is better than none from those in the know.

I thought their agents can use what they want, as long as they qualify with it.

LOL! ... Ah yeah,  no.

A 9mm doesn't take up as much room in their purse.