Why COPS use .40: Q & A With a Cop

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cpo

    hmmm......
    Aug 3, 2018
    128
    Central Maryland
    Why COPS use .40: Q & A With a Cop

    Very informative video on pistol ballistics and cartridges, and why the .40 took over. (From a Police perspective.)

    I was a cop when the big shift to .40 occurred, and I carried that for a while until I moved to the .45 for a variety of reasons. I owned my own duty weapons...but, per policy, I HAD to carry deptartment issued ammunition.
    Thankfully we were issued Speer Gold Dot, which I still think is a solid performer. Personally, now I prefer the 9mm and that's what I primarily carry - largely in part to the advances in modern ammunition. I carry Federal 124gr HST. I know a lot of local cops still carry Federal Hydrashoks... and as this guy mentioned...most of it is about policy, cost, contracts, etc. That's why I don't 100% agree with the adage that for self defense ammo, you should just carry what the local police carry because it's "defensible". I prefer to review ballistics testing and make my own decision, and that too is defensible. Anyway... here ya go.

     

    pbharvey

    Habitual Testifier
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    30,151
    My grandchildren will have to buy a C&R gun in order to shoot .40.
     

    Capt Skup

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 29, 2012
    2,385
    Calvert County
    I suspect the change is for one reason, and one reason only. It is not due to superior ballistics or advances in 9mm performance. Paul Harrel has a great video on Youtube in regard to the 9mm versus .40S&W.
     

    cpo

    hmmm......
    Aug 3, 2018
    128
    Central Maryland
    I've heard, honestly, some agencies prefer 9mm because it's a lighter recoil and poor shooting officers have a better chance of successful qualifications. Agree or not, that's a factor in agency wide decision making.

    I may be unique, but I always felt the recoil profile of the .40 was no worse, and maybe even preferable to me over the 9mm. It was more of a thud than a snap... And the .45 even moreso... But that was my experience about 20 years ago... I haven't tested it since. I'm a better shooter now than I was back then too.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=4367306&postcount=9

    It's all the same. Basically a magazine of 9, 40, & 45 all destroy roughly the same volume of tissue, given a similar sized handgun. As you move from 9 to 45, you get more momentum(less deflection) and divide that total volume into fewer shots. You also get an increase in felt recoil and reduction in speed for most people. However, since a similar wound volume is given between the magazines, the speed issue should probably be looked at in terms of emptying the mag vs a shot to shot split, making up some ground for 45.
     

    cpo

    hmmm......
    Aug 3, 2018
    128
    Central Maryland
    I always find it interesting when people respond to a post including a video, yet they never watch the video. The discussion is mildly relevant, but clearly goes in a different direction when people don't actually review the content.
     

    Racer Doug14

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,003
    Millers Maryland
    40S&W is snapper than 9mm. That's a given. I have no problem with that. I like the caliber, .40, and hope it hangs in there. But, I converted the only pistol I have in .40 to 9mm.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,673
    No idea if it enters department decisions, but my personal decision on “what is best” is based on what is the minimum I think can be really effective (9mm parabellum) between penetration of obstacles and performance in tissue. Can I effectively shoot it. How many rounds does it carry?

    That last one is pretty important. Pretty unlikely but percentage is going to go up with a bigger caliber (likely to go down, even with a really good shooter, even if it is only a few percentage points). Let’s say I have a 10% hit rate in a panic close range shoot out. With a double stack .45 I’d probably get 1 hit. With a double stack 9mm I am more likely to get 2 hits. With a single stack 9mm I am probably going to get 1 hit. With a single stack .45 I am pretty likely not going to generate any hits.

    If you look at a better hit rate, call it 20%, what happens if you have multiple attackers? I can likely successfully engage 2 or 3 with my G17. Switching to a .40 I am much more likely to only be able to engage 2. With a .45 2 is probably the absolutely best I can engage.

    Volume of fire to me matters as much as performance on target. It increase the likelihood you’ll generate a hit or more than one hit. It reduces how often you are “out of the fight” reloading. It also puts a lot more fear in the other guy when they’ve got more of a barrage of fire coming after them.

    I really have no clue if you could measure all these factors and figure out what on average is the best. Just going by what I am more comfortable with being best for me based on what I think are he more important factors.

    Just like if I was carrying a bear gun (other than Polar Bears, where I’d carry a rifle as a minimum. Handguns hurt when feed to you side ways without lube). I don’t think I’d reach for a big revolver. I’d likely go with something double stack in 10mm and get the narliest, highest penetrating round I could with a big flat meplat. Yes how many shots you can get off is limited, but if I can get off more than 1...well my limited “big caliber” experience is I can get off about 4 rounds of 200gr 10mm from a G20 in the time it takes me to fire 2 shots of 300gr .44 mag from the couple of .44s I’ve tried.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    I always find it interesting when people respond to a post including a video, yet they never watch the video. The discussion is mildly relevant, but clearly goes in a different direction when people don't actually review the content.

    Who are you talking about and why do you suspect they didn't watch the video? I watched it. It spent a lot of time talking about how outdated bullet technology isn't as good as modern bullet technology...ya think. Since there wasn't really anything super new or compelling in the video, I figured I'd address the comments within the thread and add some stuff that wasn't brought up.
     
    I've heard some officers speculating that the change is because the 9mm isn't as deadly so they are switching for liability issues...to me that's hard to believe that would be the reason but in this age of endless litigation and the potential for civil unrest when one group believes all police involved shooting deaths are caused by racist and abusive officers I can easily see some people ( certain politicians) thinking like that.
     

    cpo

    hmmm......
    Aug 3, 2018
    128
    Central Maryland
    My bad. I apologize. It wasn't specifically directed at your comment, but this thread could easily turn into a "which is better? 9 or .40" thread.. which there are plenty of. I was more interested in the police adoption or abandonment perspectives. It wasn't really you... it happens in pretty much every thread that has something to read or watch. Many folks will just read the title and start discussing without the context of the material.

    Who are you talking about and why do you suspect they didn't watch the video? I watched it. It spent a lot of time talking about how outdated bullet technology isn't as good as modern bullet technology...ya think. Since there wasn't really anything super new or compelling in the video, I figured I'd address the comments within the thread and add some stuff that wasn't brought up.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    My bad. I apologize. It wasn't specifically directed at your comment, but this thread could easily turn into a "which is better? 9 or .40" thread.. which there are plenty of. I was more interested in the police adoption or abandonment perspectives. It wasn't really you... it happens in pretty much every thread that has something to read or watch. Many folks will just read the title and start discussing without the context of the material.

    Rock on. That is an interesting topic to consider...especially contrasted against the other caliber war threads. I wasn't sure so figured I'd ask. Speaking to the qualifications scores issue, it reminds me of the book american gun by chris kyle. I've got to pull it out when I get home, but he talks a lot about a guy in the military that continuously resisted better technology and left the troops with outdated rifles. It was back in the falling-block days of guns and if I remember correctly(it's been a few years), this guy in procurement was one of the reasons custer's troops were so outgunned.

    That said, adopting new technology that's not properly vetted can give you issues like baltimores fn handguns....or the caseless rifle shenanigans with hk. What kind of best practices would you like to see within the political makeup of a police force in order to result in the best tools getting to the officers that is still efficient in terms of vetting and administrative concerns?
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    I don't buy the "less lethal" garbage. That's someone who is uneducated to the matter at hand and spewing stuff.

    If anyone thinks a 147 HST or Gold Dot is "less lethal" than a 180 Grain Ranger T Series I'd ask if they'd want to get hit with either.

    Furthermore if "less lethal" is the name of the game why are the officers picking up between 3-6 rounds in the magazine? Putting more holes in something is more lethal in most situations is it not? Rapid loss of blood is typically the name of the game with handgun rounds. 17 9mm rounds compared to 12 or 14 .40's seem to cause more blood loss to me.

    I'd have zero issue going with a good 9mm round as opposed to a .40. The size difference of expanded bullets isn't all that great. .40 only seems to hold up a bit better in barrier penetration which isn't a huge issue to me personally.
     

    Pale Ryder

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,232
    Millersville
    If I were able to conceal carry, I would opt for a 9mm, but since that's out I don't have to limit myself to just that. Somewhere on you tube is a video of Hikcock45 shooting steel targets with a pair of Kel Tec Sub2K's. One in 9 and one in 40. The 9 at I believe 100 yds was barely and not always knocking the ram over. The 40 always did.

    For me the only reason to choose a 9 for conceal carry, is you get decent stopping power without snappy recoil in a small package. Bonus is, practice ammo is cheaper.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,419
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom