For decades the standard for police was the .38 Special revolver. Then beginning in the 1970s 9mm semi-automatics became the standard; more recently .40 caliber has eclipsed 9mm. 10mm and .41 caliber were tried but deemed too powerful for general issue. Now replacing revolvers with removable-magazine guns sounds simple enough: it was decided police needed more rounds and faster reloads. But why the move to heavier calibers? I’ve heard it claimed that the widespread use of crack, PCP and meth led police to conclude that more “manstopping” power was needed. Truth or fiction?
From what I’ve read from various gun threads there is a near fetish for “stopping power” to combat crazy people on crank, terrorists with bullet proof vests, and the odd tyrannosaurus which has led to larger and larger calibers and loads being used. The 38 caliber guns that used to be used for everyday police work are now regarded as inadequate pea shooters unsuitable for the modern criminal.
It seems police these days are taught to draw down instantly on aggressive, non-cooperative people who would have been night sticked in years past. It’s a shame really, you rarely see good truncheon wielding skills anymore.
The main reason was a perceived need for the officer to have available a greater amount of ammo. The Glock 17 carried 18 rounds( 1 in the chamber, 17 in the mag), three times the load of a revolver. Reloading was far faster plus the 9mm is more powerful than the .38.
The .40 S&W has taken over from the 9mm as a good compromise between the 9mm and the .45 ACP.
I think this may be what you’re looking for: The Miami Shootout.
And here’s the FBI analysis of it.
That second link has nothing to do with the FBI. It’s basically a really long and technical book report by FirearmsTactical.com, e-zine publishers.
Here is the FBI report.
From a practical standpoint, you want a single round to be enough, because you might not get a chance for more. You also want a round that will do its damage against a variety of people wearing a range of armor.
Back in the revolver days, the .357 was an upgrade from the .38. The 9mm has been replaced in many markets by the .40, and in some departments the .45 is back.
For obvious reasons, ranged weapons are preferred, even for less than lethal force - think CS guns or Tasers, or even rubber/plastic/frangible rounds fired from conventional firearms.
I won’t begrudge a cop his or her preference for the use of force at range to close quarter melée. I see no reason to give a suspect gratuitous opportunites to case injury at knife/fist/club/syringe range.
Of course you are correct. I was rushing and in my haste had convinced myself that that was the ‘FBI’ report. Apologies.
There’s also a shift in the opposite direction: FN does a round in 5.7mm - a very small but fast round designed to defeat body armor. It’s used by a number of people in the pistol(FiveSeven) and in a larger weapon(P90). The P90 is seeing some use by tactical entry teams. The round is small and fast, and in high capacity: 20 round magazines in the pistol, and 50 round magazines (IIRC) in the P90.
There are two issues here: capacity and power. The shift to self-loading weapons addresses capacity. Shifting away from the 9mm addresses power. There’s also the issue of penetration, which is dealt with by choice of bullets, including things like the frangible .357 Sig rounds used by the US air marshalls.
Fiction. First of all, police departments went from the venerable .38 Spl to the .357 Magnum in the 'Seventies, followed by a move to high capacity 9mm Parabellum pistols in the early-to-mid 'Eightes, largely because selection of the 9mmP Beretta 92F as the joint US Army-Navy-Air Force (mostly for ammunition commonality with the rest of the NATO member militaries) opened up a new interest in the 9mmP. The fact that Beretta now had production facilities in the United States and was pumping out tens of thousands of pistols a year made them cost-competitive. Many other gunmakers such as Ruger and Colt followed suit, while Smith & Wesson updated their pistol line to compete, and foreign gunmakers such as Glock, Heckler & Kock, and Steyr made forays into the market, some obviously more successful than others.
Second, the issue isn’t simply one of power, but rather penetration, both the necessity and excess of it. Virtually all police departments necessitate the use of JHP rounds in duty weapons because they are more effective at stopping a perpetrator and staying within the body, thereby posing less risk to bystanders. While some ignorant people have demonized JHPs, calling them “buzzsaw bullets” and “dum-dums”, the fact is that if a shooter elects to drop the hammer on a person then he is using lethal force and accepting–and indeed should be expecting–the good possibility of death of the target. This assumes that the target is posing a lethal hazard to the shooter or someone else, so if hollowpoint bullets are more effective in stopping an attacker, they are preventing the death of another person.
In the 1985 Miami shootout cited by KarlGauss, the lightweight (115 grain) rounds used by the FBI failed to penetrate adequately, which caused departments to shift to heavier 124 grain rounds and then the subsonic 149 grain 9mmP. The latter was originally intended to be used in suppressed submachineguns and was not designed to be a jacketed hollow point (JHP) round. This is important because the 149 grain bullet has a very high sectional density and is notorious for plugging (filling the cavity with cloth or flesh, preventing hydrostatic pressure from mushrooming the bullet) and punching right through a perpetrator just like a roundnose bullet would, thereby posing a hazard to the backdrop. Some bulletmakers attempted to address this with designs that are more likely to expand, but the problem remains; I know the wife of a friend (both police officers) who punched through and through a suspect with a 9mm and hit the guy behind him. (Both were committing a felony crime, but the latter was not threatening or brandishing, so there may be ugly reprecussions.) This is the sort of thing that has given the 9mmP a (legitimately) bad rap among law enforcement, moreso that the alleged inadequate “stopping power” of the round.
Although the 10mm Auto round is substantialy more powerful–essentially, a .41 Magnum in a straight wall case, recessed rim form–the extra diameter and lower sectional density provide it with more margin to expand. What the FBI found was that the 10mm Auto was difficult for some agents to handle, not just because of the recoil imparted by the round but because the length of the round–designed by men with large hands–made the grip of the gun too large for many agents to carry comfortably, and the size and weight of the S&W 1076 that was issued was too large for many agents to wear in a high rise or IWB holster. The .40 S&W–a cut-down version of the round that matched the ballistics of the 10mm Auto ‘Lite’ round–packaged well into the high capacity 9mmP pistols, sacrificing 2-3 rounds of ammunition in exchange for more reliable penetration, although empirical statistics (based upon “one shot stops”) don’t show it to be exceptionally higher performing. It does have a significantly less likelyhood of overpenetrating though The .45 ACP is even better yet at this, offering (in the heavier bullet weights) acceptable penetration but stopping short of punching through.
Regarding so-called “stopping power”, bullet proof vests, and drug-crazed perpetrators: there is no question that the best “stopping power” goes to the shooter who can consistently place bullets inside the 9-ring under the stress of combat. A .40 S&W or 357 Magnum in the arm or leg isn’t going to be nearly as effective as a .28 Spl that goes through the heart or a lung. That being said, people under combat stress will often do amazing things despite horrific wounds, and often will not notice injuries until they become completely debilitating (bled out, severed nerves, broken bones, et cetera). A lot of the ability to do this is psychological, and a sine quo non of modern tactical training is not to allow an officer having taken a hit from a simunition (paint simulator bullet) round to give up or play dead, but rather to push him or her to keep ‘fighting’ until a referee calls them down. Obviously, in this case, someone who has experienced combat injuries before (many repeat offenders), or someone who is dissociated from the pain and fear of combat by way of psychotic episode or mind-altering drug has an advantage, but that is true with whatever round is being used; what is critical is that the officer or defender continue to deliver controlled fire to the target center of mass or other effective area that is visible (head, legs) until the attacker goes down and no longer presents a threat. The main advantage to the autoloader here is the higher magazine capacity (7-18 rounds for a pistol versus 5-6 for a duty revolver) and the ability to reload quickly (~1 second to slap home a new magazine versus 2-3 seconds for even most skilled shooters to empty a cylinder and reload with a speedloader), which allows for more firepower, and thus more time to effectively respond before the defender has to retreat or find another weapon. The secondary advantage is to the round that has better penetration, but again, you want a lot of bullets and you want them on target, not just one magic round that will incapacitate the suspect if you nick him in the ear.
Modern Level 2a body armor will stop all handgun rounds, save for something like the 5.7x28mm, which is designed to travel at carbine-round speeds and penetrate armor. Excepting specialty rounds like the KTW bullet, which aren’t even available to normal law enforcement personnel, no standard duty caliber will effectively penetrate body armor, and outside of movies and a handful of outlandish bank robberies few perpetrators wear body armor of any kind.
I suspect you are being somewhat facetious, but it is both true that police officers draw their weapons more now in violent confrontation, and that is because too many officers were being seriously injured or killed by violent perpetrators whom they attempted to subdue with minimal (read: inadequate) force. In part, this was because many police departments did not have a coherent ‘use of force’ policy in years past, entrusting judgment of force application to the officer in-situ. The problem with this is that most people, including police officers, are reluctant to injure or kill someone without explicit necessity, while many violent criminals demonstrate sociopathic and atavistic attitudes and have no reluctance to become lethal themselves, so it became an unequal playing field of the officer trying to ‘out-think’ the perp and figure out how to get him to surrender while the aggressor was just looking for an opening.
Now it is more widely understood that the first duty an officer has is to protect himself and his fellow officers because a wounded officer is a liability and a taken weapon is a hazard to everyone around. The general rule on use of force is to take on a perpetrator with overwhelming force, either in the number of officers attending or (if the situation requires it) by using a level of response to threat that exceeds the threat itself; i.e. if a perp pulls out a knife, the cop draws down and displays his sidearm; if the perp fires once, the cop responds by firing repeatedly until the perp is down and incapable of response. This isn’t cruel or vicious; it is the police officer doing his job to not only “protect and serve” but to go home alive at the end of shift rather than become a fiscal and esprit liability by being injured or killed.
That being said, there are a greater number of less lethal options available to police today including highly potent spray-gel OC and third generation Taser weapons, which are surprisingly effective. (One cop friend professed that upon being Tasered by the newest generation he curled up on the floor and cried like a little girl, whereas previous Taser shocks just hurt or made his leg twitch.) But in general police departments are going toward weapons that keep the officer out of melee range, and hopefully with enough distance (at least 21’) to allow the officer to draw his or her duty weapon and fire should a less lethal option not deliver the desired incapacitive effect. The side-handle PR-24 tonfa and other batons like the ASP are being de-emphisized in training as they turn out to be less effective than necessary and paradoxically often more lethal than intended, simultaneously exposing the officer to more risk and the department to greater liability. Several major departments are actually considering taking the PR-24 off the duty belt entirely, which would probably be a relief to patrol officers who never know where to put the damn things when sitting down.
Stranger
Thank you, Stranger. Good reading.
nice post Stranger, thank you. I am amazed that the general idea of “equivalent force” could be so difficult to establish.
The problem with “equivalent force” as the governing criteria for use of force standards is that it is inherently reactionary; that is, it is easy to say after the fact than an officer used the appropriate (equivalent) level of force, but in the situation the officer either has to wait until the suspect acts (draw a weapon, jumps for an attack, et cetera) or correctly guess at the motivation and intent of the perpetrator. A wrong guess may well end up with an injured or dead officer or civilian, and waiting for escalation means that the officer will be under the hammer before he can response, which is an unenviable position no soldier would want to find himself in. Overwhelming force, on the other hand, may smother even the attempt at an attack. A perpetrator facing a single officer who is visibly uncommitted may elect to “feel lucky” and take his chances; one facing one or more officers with drawn weapons is somewhat less likely to estimate his chances for successful escape as being good, and if he makes the last desperate stand is far less likely to have the upper hand, meaning that the officer is more likely to go home at end of shift than to the E/R or morgue.
This doesn’t excuse police brutality or other unprofessionalism, of course. Indeed, applying a proactive, aggressive use of force policy requires a high degree of professionalism and training so that officers are discouraged from departing from defined use of force policy, and treat all suspects with equal measures of detached courtesy and vigilance. Waiting for a perp to draw down before an officer acts to return fire, on the other hand, results in loss of initiative and attendant panic and disarray, and greater risk to officers and the general public.
Stranger
Nice post, Stranger, with one quibble - the use of acronyms. You used JHP, but you defined it later in the post. You also used ACP and IWB, which someone interested in the subject but little knowledge of firearms (like me) might not know.
Sorry, I probably did some rearranging of text.
JHP = Jacketed hollowpoint
ACP = Automatic Colt Pistol (specificaton designation)
IWB = Inside the waistband (holster, carries the weapon in the rear inside of the pants for maximum concealment)
Also, “.28 Spl” is a typo, should be “.38 Spl”.
Stranger
Nice explanation Stranger.
I would only add that the 9mm round was conceived to be the rough ballistic equivalent of the designed-for-black-powder, .38 spl. revolver round, without the rim, and a shorter case, making up for the lost case capacity by using new-fangled (at the time) smokeless powder. It offers slightly higher energy with light bullets, but both use .357 dia. bullets of similar weight. In modern (strong) guns, the .38 spl. can be loaded to “+P” standards, yielding significantly higher power than the 9mm, and the .357 magnum (a boosted 38 spl.) offers even higher power. The 9mm loses a larger percentage of it’s powder volume when stuffed with a heavy bullet. Also, broad flat pointed bullets (that preserve case capacity) may not feed so well in an auto, so the old (not +P) .38 spl with it’s 155 grain bullet is argued by many to be a better “man-stopper” than the 9.
Thus the move away from revolvers to 9mm was at best a marginal increase in stopping power, and in many cases a loss. The only point in favor of the nine, performance wise, is the high capacity magazine(s). I understood you to say that, (or at least didn’t think you were saying otherwise) but wanted to make it clear, as the OP might be read to mean that the move to the nine was one of several promotions upward in power… it was only a lateral transfer.
Very tiny (literally) nitpick: the 9mmP (and most if not all other 9mm rounds) are actually 0.355" (9.02mm) in diameter, while the .38 S&W Spl/.357 S&W Magnum and most other .38 caliber rounds are 0.356"-0.357" in diameter. The .357 Sig is so labeled for marketing replacements (as ballistically equivalent to a .357 Magnum out of a 3" barrel) even though the bullet is a 9mm and 0.355" in diameter. The .38 S&W (not to be confused with the Special) is actually .361" in diameter. Only the .356 TSW really gets it right, actually being 0.356" in diameter.
The 9mmP was definitely a comedown from the .357 Magnum in terms of one-shot stop capability, but the additional firepower, reduced recoil, and robustness of autoloading pistols versus revolvers justifies the changeover in my mind. (I’m not a fan of revolvers, even as backup pieces, as the low firepower and tendency toward contamination and damage makes them unsuited as duty weapons.) I tend to favor the .45 ACP or similar rounds not because I think the so-called “knockdown” capability is significantly better, but because the greater mass gives more reliable penetration while the larger diameter gives more consistent expansion and energy delivery to the target. I’d also say that the .45 ACP also makes a resounding thump compared to the prissy banging of a 9mm or the obnoxious crack of a .40 S&W, while not being quite as deafening as a .357 Mag or a 10mm Auto, but that’s just my prejudices showing.
Stranger
No, not really, as this serves to point out one of the things that so confuse folk who don’t have a lot of firearms knowledge…the nomenclature of various rounds has been consistently inconsistent throughout the years.
It never hurts to be really specific and add lots of explanation when talking about this subject; good job!
I’m curious if this was related to the military’s interest in moving to a higher-caliber handgun. I’ve read that in Iraq, units occaisionally did fined themselves using sidearms for whatever reason, and having damnably hard times putting enemies down (incapacitated or dead) with them: the enemy could simply keep going even after several torso hits.
Why do today’s cops need a handgun with 15 shots, and then on top of that to be able to reload and shoot so many more times?
I knew lots of cops in the old days when they carried 6 shot 38 revolvers, and not one of them in their entire careers ever had the need to reload while shooting at somebody while on duty.
First of all, while the truism that most officers never have to discharge a weapon in the course of their duty still holds, the fact is that the possibility of armed exchange is far greater than it was twenty or thirty years ago. One can hypothesize many causes for this–increased penalties for drug crimes, that criminals are better armed, the prevalence of violence in entertainment media–but officers have drawn their duty weapons in anticipation of use, and more officers have been involved in shootings by an order of magnitude increase over decades past.
Second, as anyone involved in a combat situation will attest, you can never have too much firepower. The movies and television programs often show a villain being incapacitated or killed with a single, well-placed shot, but the reality of armed combat is that in the stress of combat it can be very difficult to keep shots inside the center of mass, and even if you can place shots on target it doesn’t guarantee instant incapacitation. The annals of forensic ballistics are rife with people who took multiple shots to the chest cavity or even the head, and continued to attack aggressively before bleeding out. The ability to reload quickly and keep delivering defensive or covering fire may very well mean the difference between life or death, and given that there are no reset buttons on mortal wounds, a wise peace officer would rather carry too much ammo than too little.
Third, the double action service revolver is a very old and heavy design that is prone to damage and fouling. The general wisdom is that revolvers “don’t jam”; it’s true that they’re not capable of feed or stovepipe jams, but I’ve seen plenty of revolvers jammed by contamination or a bent or damaged extractor rod, whereas modern, high quality autoloading pistols are virtually immune from any traumatic damage incurred from dropping or striking against a hard surface.
An officer should hope to never have to discharge his duty weapon “in anger”, but he or she should also be prepared for the eventuality of not only having to fire it at a suspect, but do face down an aggressive suspect capable of sustaining multiple hits, or multiple attackers, with some reasonable expectation of coming out alive, both for self-preservation and prosecution of the duty to protect the public. To that end, the shift to the autoloading pistol as a duty weapon is prudent and responsible. Andy Griffith may have kept his revolver locked away in his desk, but then, he was a character on a t.v. show.
Stranger