As a taxpayer, I'd be very annoyed at the call to be switching back and forth to the trending caliber of the day. Unless what they are currectly carrying can be shown to be ineffective, or considerably less affective, I don't see a need to change from 9 to 40 or from 40 to 9 until the weapon has reached its effective lifespan.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Criteria for LEO Service Pistols
- Thread starter jdscholer
- Start date
I know this doesn't answer the question
But all departments are different and of course have different criteria.
Some, thankfully have changed
When I joined the Anchorage Police Dept. Mar 8th 1974, I was temp. issued a used Model 15 38 spl. with the understanding I would return it in exchange for the Model 28s that were in route.
Ammo? We were issued 158 LRN 38 ammo that was cast and loaded by jail trustees...................no thanks, I went home and loaded my own LSWCs 38s using the Lyman 358477 mold. Later when I got my Model 28 I load the same bullet in 357 cases.
Thankfully that policy was changes later on.
No depts. have the same criteria, some (like the old APD) had really stupid criteria.
But all departments are different and of course have different criteria.
Some, thankfully have changed
When I joined the Anchorage Police Dept. Mar 8th 1974, I was temp. issued a used Model 15 38 spl. with the understanding I would return it in exchange for the Model 28s that were in route.
Ammo? We were issued 158 LRN 38 ammo that was cast and loaded by jail trustees...................no thanks, I went home and loaded my own LSWCs 38s using the Lyman 358477 mold. Later when I got my Model 28 I load the same bullet in 357 cases.
Thankfully that policy was changes later on.
No depts. have the same criteria, some (like the old APD) had really stupid criteria.
This has been debated for years. Lots of people say lots of stuff, but the actual test data and research shows almost zero difference between any of the commonly available rounds. And always has when comparable ammo is used. The 9mm vs 45 debate has been raging for over 100 years with no clear winner. That fact alone should be proof that there is no real difference in performance.
We're talking human threats at typical ranges. If you start talking about shots at really long range, or having to put down larger animals like some rural departments are called upon from time to time then heavier bullets fired from the 10mm, 40 or 357 mag make sense.
I like the 10mm or 40 and predict the 40 will remain a major player in LE. I also understand why the 9mm is making a comeback and could quite possibly bump the 40 to become the most common LE round. I can also see some added versatility from the 40. But unless you anticipate the need for heavier bullets the 9mm is equally effective, and a lot cheaper to shoot with less recoil and more ammo.
Basically everything is compared to the 357 mag. The best 9mm loads come awfully close to 357 mag performance with lighter bullets. The 40 comes awfully close to 357 mag with heavier bullets. The 10mm slightly beats it. 45 ACP at the end of the day equals the 357 mag. All 4 do so with greater capacity, smaller handguns, less muzzle blast and recoil than 357 mag. But the 357 mag does it all in one package because of the wide range of bullet weights it will shoot.
The 45 ACP is the biggest loser in the debate. Not that it doesn't work, it does. It just doesn't offer any advantages. Only greater recoil, more expensive ammo, and much less capacity.
We're talking human threats at typical ranges. If you start talking about shots at really long range, or having to put down larger animals like some rural departments are called upon from time to time then heavier bullets fired from the 10mm, 40 or 357 mag make sense.
I like the 10mm or 40 and predict the 40 will remain a major player in LE. I also understand why the 9mm is making a comeback and could quite possibly bump the 40 to become the most common LE round. I can also see some added versatility from the 40. But unless you anticipate the need for heavier bullets the 9mm is equally effective, and a lot cheaper to shoot with less recoil and more ammo.
Basically everything is compared to the 357 mag. The best 9mm loads come awfully close to 357 mag performance with lighter bullets. The 40 comes awfully close to 357 mag with heavier bullets. The 10mm slightly beats it. 45 ACP at the end of the day equals the 357 mag. All 4 do so with greater capacity, smaller handguns, less muzzle blast and recoil than 357 mag. But the 357 mag does it all in one package because of the wide range of bullet weights it will shoot.
The 45 ACP is the biggest loser in the debate. Not that it doesn't work, it does. It just doesn't offer any advantages. Only greater recoil, more expensive ammo, and much less capacity.
Aguila Blanca, I'm sorry but I forgot how to quote on this forum.
Our agency's policy is Glock .40 for uniformed officers except for the G27 which can only be carried off duty or as a backup. There is more to that policy but it addresses off duty and plainclothes duty and a way to request other weapons through our bureau commander. It also addresses long weapons like duty rifles and shotguns.
But, there are other agencies who may allow their officers to carry almost anything (within reason) if they qualify with it first.
Also, there are agencies wanting a single gun/caliber platform for various reasons so the sky is the limit with makes, models, calibers and loads for them to chose from.
Sorry for any confusion from my other posts.
Our agency's policy is Glock .40 for uniformed officers except for the G27 which can only be carried off duty or as a backup. There is more to that policy but it addresses off duty and plainclothes duty and a way to request other weapons through our bureau commander. It also addresses long weapons like duty rifles and shotguns.
But, there are other agencies who may allow their officers to carry almost anything (within reason) if they qualify with it first.
Also, there are agencies wanting a single gun/caliber platform for various reasons so the sky is the limit with makes, models, calibers and loads for them to chose from.
Sorry for any confusion from my other posts.
bamaranger
New member
policy
Recently aged out ( I hate the word "retired") with my outfit, which in recent months has just released its updated policy on firearms and ammo.
The NPS still allows an officers choice at academy, on calibers from 9mm, .40 and .45, and considers a rather wide range of bullet weights in each caliber as "approved" provided they are expanding projectiles, or designed to expand, and are of US manufacture. What issued ammo a ranger receives may depend largely on what the preferences are of the chief , asst. chief, or instructor who is doing the ordering at HQ. Price plays a role for certain. I am not aware of a prohibition keeping a ranger from purchasing a favored load, as long as it conforms to guidelines. Pistols are still SIG, with a model or two dropped, and a new model or two added. I've not seen the new policy with my own eyes, only conversations.
Keeping multiple calibers on hand is an administrative pain, but does enable the officer with a selection of ammo/hangun and fit, that builds confidence and ability, at least that was the logic as stated to me. As we work solo mostly, interchangeability between officers was not considered as an issue.
Personally, I think there is merit for larger caliber and heavier bullet in the LE handgun. LEO's are more likely to have to deal with barriers like auto glass, and anybody in a cold climate or outdoors may have to deal with heavyclothing, coats, vests, etc. In such instances, the heavier slug may do better. My observations on the job were that the 9mm was most often chosen by admin types and the less common caliber choice. There was about an even split on .40 and .45, the .40 a bit more popular due to capacity.
The hi cap .45's like the new P227, (approved) or the Glock 20 (as example) to me, would seem ideal to the shooter that could handle them, fit and performance wise.
Recently aged out ( I hate the word "retired") with my outfit, which in recent months has just released its updated policy on firearms and ammo.
The NPS still allows an officers choice at academy, on calibers from 9mm, .40 and .45, and considers a rather wide range of bullet weights in each caliber as "approved" provided they are expanding projectiles, or designed to expand, and are of US manufacture. What issued ammo a ranger receives may depend largely on what the preferences are of the chief , asst. chief, or instructor who is doing the ordering at HQ. Price plays a role for certain. I am not aware of a prohibition keeping a ranger from purchasing a favored load, as long as it conforms to guidelines. Pistols are still SIG, with a model or two dropped, and a new model or two added. I've not seen the new policy with my own eyes, only conversations.
Keeping multiple calibers on hand is an administrative pain, but does enable the officer with a selection of ammo/hangun and fit, that builds confidence and ability, at least that was the logic as stated to me. As we work solo mostly, interchangeability between officers was not considered as an issue.
Personally, I think there is merit for larger caliber and heavier bullet in the LE handgun. LEO's are more likely to have to deal with barriers like auto glass, and anybody in a cold climate or outdoors may have to deal with heavyclothing, coats, vests, etc. In such instances, the heavier slug may do better. My observations on the job were that the 9mm was most often chosen by admin types and the less common caliber choice. There was about an even split on .40 and .45, the .40 a bit more popular due to capacity.
The hi cap .45's like the new P227, (approved) or the Glock 20 (as example) to me, would seem ideal to the shooter that could handle them, fit and performance wise.
2 damnold, your links are the only two factual examples in this entire post and while one Dept. is transistioning from .40 to 9 the other is quite content with their 40's. I understand various organizations will transition from one caliber to another, safety (usually AD's) and the almighty dollar is more of a deciding factor than any ballistic study. GR PD would not be seeing such acceptance within the city leaders if they were not "making money" on the trade. If such a lucritive trade in allowance was made the supplier must know there is a ready market for rapid sales of 40 cal pistols. Even though i am happier with a 9 mm it does not mean my biases were reflected in my proposal to adopt and issue the 40 cal some thirty years ago. A neighboring city during that same time frame (30 years) has carried .45 pistols, transitioned to .357 Sig, allowed both calibers and finally transitioned to .40's which they carry today. The city council advised the move to the 40 was "cost effective" and no mention was made in the approval of the caliber being the best (or worst) available.
Let me chime in with a common theme that's been running.
The .40 is in my opinion generally superior to the 9mm. There is not much doubt in that. If we cherry pick various 9mm and .40 loadings I think that becomes obvious. The one indisputed fact is that a 9 may or may not expand to .40 but a .40 will never shrink to 9mm.
With that said. Hitting someone in the vitals with a decent 9mm designed bullet is better than missing the vitals of a threat with a premium .40 bullet. That was the case 25 or so years ago and is still the case today. I know that "supposedly" bullet technology - lethality design - has increased. But I challenge that premise. A JHP bullet is a JHP bullet. Add in fancy serrations and or bullet coatings and you still have a lead core with a copper jacket. The same thing we had at the time of the famous FBI Miami Shootout.
Now I may say something that many will disagree with. I've read the after action reports of that Shootout. And the FBI agents were outfought as much as, or more so than they were outgunned.
My opinion on the FBI going back to 9MM is the believe that they do not want to spend the extra time and efforts training their agents to become proficient with the .40. Of secondary consideration is the $$ savings of 9mm over .40.
Personally I feel either cartridge is fine - both are good semi auto pistol cartridges.. But don't try to sell the 9 as being superior to the .40.
Anyway that's my believe.
With all that said. I see these cartridges most in use with LE. In no certain order: 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 SIG, .45 ACP. These are probably what 80-90% of all agencies use for their main sidearm.
Regards,
Rob
The .40 is in my opinion generally superior to the 9mm. There is not much doubt in that. If we cherry pick various 9mm and .40 loadings I think that becomes obvious. The one indisputed fact is that a 9 may or may not expand to .40 but a .40 will never shrink to 9mm.
With that said. Hitting someone in the vitals with a decent 9mm designed bullet is better than missing the vitals of a threat with a premium .40 bullet. That was the case 25 or so years ago and is still the case today. I know that "supposedly" bullet technology - lethality design - has increased. But I challenge that premise. A JHP bullet is a JHP bullet. Add in fancy serrations and or bullet coatings and you still have a lead core with a copper jacket. The same thing we had at the time of the famous FBI Miami Shootout.
Now I may say something that many will disagree with. I've read the after action reports of that Shootout. And the FBI agents were outfought as much as, or more so than they were outgunned.
My opinion on the FBI going back to 9MM is the believe that they do not want to spend the extra time and efforts training their agents to become proficient with the .40. Of secondary consideration is the $$ savings of 9mm over .40.
Personally I feel either cartridge is fine - both are good semi auto pistol cartridges.. But don't try to sell the 9 as being superior to the .40.
Anyway that's my believe.
With all that said. I see these cartridges most in use with LE. In no certain order: 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 SIG, .45 ACP. These are probably what 80-90% of all agencies use for their main sidearm.
Regards,
Rob
2damnold4this
New member
GR PD would not be seeing such acceptance within the city leaders if they were not "making money" on the trade. If such a lucritive trade in allowance was made the supplier must know there is a ready market for rapid sales of 40 cal pistols. Even though i am happier with a 9 mm it does not mean my biases were reflected in my proposal to adopt and issue the 40 cal some thirty years ago. A neighboring city during that same time frame (30 years) has carried .45 pistols, transitioned to .357 Sig, allowed both calibers and finally transitioned to .40's which they carry today. The city council advised the move to the 40 was "cost effective" and no mention was made in the approval of the caliber being the best (or worst) available.
Good point. I'm sure economics will continue to play a big role in the firearms departments adopt in the future.
Dragline45
New member
Rob62 said:The .40 is in my opinion generally superior to the 9mm. There is not much doubt in that.
On paper it is, and so is the 30-06 over the .308, but the 30-06 doesn't kill deer any better than the .308, and the .40 isn't any more effective against human threats than 9mm.
The .40 is in my opinion generally superior to the 9mm. There is not much doubt in that.
If you ignore all scientific testing and comparisons in equivalent media and just base the effectiveness on your beliefs, then yes, the 40 is a better round.
Based on actual side by side comparisons in ballistic gel and in real life performance...they are so close there is no real difference.
Crazy88Fingers
New member
No real LEO that I know would ever choose a 9mm over a .40.
I would. From what I've seen, 9mm is nothing to sneeze at anymore. And since my agency issues a sidearm that doesn't quite fit my hand, I'd welcome the gentle recoil of a 9mm with open arms.
SPEMack618
New member
There's a deputy from my home county, the only to ever use his sidearm in anger, in fact, who still carries a Model 13 with Hogue grips on it.
Crankylove
New member
My father in law was a local LEO for 25ish years.
The first 15 years or so, they really didn't have much, if any choice in the firearm, or caliber.
The last decade, they really eased up on the restrictions. You have to carry a gun from the "approved" list, all auto loaders (i.e., 2-3 models each from Glock, S&W, Sig, etc), and had to be on the caliber list (9mms, .357 Sig, 40 Smith, and .45 Auto I believe), but you had some leeway to carry what fit you, and what you shot the best.
For off duty, or back up guns, if you could qualify with it (bAckups only, off duty didn't matter) you could carry it.
When he went to the SWAT team for a few years, it was pretty much carry whatever gun you want. He usually carried a Hipower, or 1911.
In all his years, he favorite duty gun was none of his pistols, but the Galil he packed as a SWAT officer.
The first 15 years or so, they really didn't have much, if any choice in the firearm, or caliber.
The last decade, they really eased up on the restrictions. You have to carry a gun from the "approved" list, all auto loaders (i.e., 2-3 models each from Glock, S&W, Sig, etc), and had to be on the caliber list (9mms, .357 Sig, 40 Smith, and .45 Auto I believe), but you had some leeway to carry what fit you, and what you shot the best.
For off duty, or back up guns, if you could qualify with it (bAckups only, off duty didn't matter) you could carry it.
When he went to the SWAT team for a few years, it was pretty much carry whatever gun you want. He usually carried a Hipower, or 1911.
In all his years, he favorite duty gun was none of his pistols, but the Galil he packed as a SWAT officer.