Sidearms used by officers

[PhotonGuy]

Im not sure if most police officers today carry a 9mm or something bigger such as a .45 but I do know the army switched to 9mm in order to use the same caliber NATO uses. The thing is, its important to use a caliber that has good stopping power. Im not sure if the officer in this video was using a 9mm but he needed something bigger, and he might've been better off with a revolver since they don't jam as easily.

 

[Blindside]

The first thing my CWP instructor said in our class was "all handguns suck."

 

[Buka]

When I first worked as a cop we used Smith and Wesson 38's. Later we went with Sig 45.

That vid shows-

Why pepper spray annoys, but not much else other than sucking.
Why a lot of us carried a back up piece, even when we weren't supposed to.
Why a lot of our wives don't bother asking "How was your day, honey?"
And why it's one of the hardest occupations to get involved in.

 

[punisher73]

In our area/county all agencies use the .40 S&W round for their main sidearm. Kind of a hybird of the 9mm and .45acp

Backups are left up to each officer so calibers vary.

 

[Grenadier]

Handguns, regardless of choice of commonly used calibers, will always have feeble manstopping capabilities, compared to long guns.

As long as the officer does his job of placing the shot well enough, then any of today's premium hollowpoint loads that are commonly used in any of today's common duty calibers will do the job with similar results.

Too many people made too much of an issue with the 1986 Miami FBI incident, where the use of poor tactics ended up getting agents killed by Platt and Matix, and the 115 grain Winchester Silvertip JHP was unfairly blamed. The round did exactly what it was supposed to do, and I doubt they would have had any better results even if they had been using a .45, 10 mm, etc.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Im not sure if most police officers today carry a 9mm or something bigger such as a .45 but I do know the army switched to 9mm in order to use the same caliber NATO uses. The thing is, its important to use a caliber that has good stopping power. Im not sure if the officer in this video was using a 9mm but he needed something bigger, and he might've been better off with a revolver since they don't jam as easily.

Stopping power (unless you're shooting a rhinoceros) is primarily a function of ACCURACY, with ammo type playing a close second. Caliber is a distant third.
A person will die faster from a well placed shot with a small caliber weapon than a poorly placed round from any large caliber. Deadliest shot? A head shot with a .22. The round won't leave the skull. It will, however, bounce around inside the skull. I've seen CT scans that show the bullet track crossing the brain, bouncing back, crossing it again, bouncing back, crossing it again... I think the most I've seen was 4 tracks across the brain with the bullet stopped about 1/3 of the way across on its 5th trip.

Any mechanical device can fail. But a properly maintained, well built modern semiauto handgun is extremely reliable. I have a Ruger P95 with something over 4,000 rounds through it. In that time, I have had exactly TWO failures. One was an extraction failure, when a very very hot handload caused excessive expansion of the case. The other was a feed failure, which occurred at the range when I'd put about 350 rounds through the weapon without stopping to do anything other than reload.
The idea that there is any significant difference in reliability is nonsense. There may possibly have been some truth to the idea back in the stone ages, but I've never seen any objective tests to support it.

 

[seasoned]

.40 S&W by most here. We train for jams and can clear fairly quickly if need be. Wheel gun back up, .38 sub.

 

[Transk53]

Im not sure if most police officers today carry a 9mm or something bigger such as a .45 but I do know the army switched to 9mm in order to use the same caliber NATO uses. The thing is, its important to use a caliber that has good stopping power. Im not sure if the officer in this video was using a 9mm but he needed something bigger, and he might've been better off with a revolver since they don't jam as easily.

Guess you are talking about a Phase Pistol here?

 

[PhotonGuy]

Handguns, regardless of choice of commonly used calibers, will always have feeble manstopping capabilities, compared to long guns.

As long as the officer does his job of placing the shot well enough, then any of today's premium hollowpoint loads that are commonly used in any of today's common duty calibers will do the job with similar results.

Too many people made too much of an issue with the 1986 Miami FBI incident, where the use of poor tactics ended up getting agents killed by Platt and Matix, and the 115 grain Winchester Silvertip JHP was unfairly blamed. The round did exactly what it was supposed to do, and I doubt they would have had any better results even if they had been using a .45, 10 mm, etc.

From far away most rifles will obviously be much more effective at stopping than any handgun but from close up, from the distance the officer was from the perpetrator in the video, I see no reason why a good handgun round shouldn't stop him. The officer was probably using a 9mm or something less powerful as even a 9mm can have good stopping power. At that distance I see no reason why a .357 Magnum or a Colt .45 shouldn't put the bad guy down.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Stopping power (unless you're shooting a rhinoceros) is primarily a function of ACCURACY, with ammo type playing a close second. Caliber is a distant third.
A person will die faster from a well placed shot with a small caliber weapon than a poorly placed round from any large caliber. Deadliest shot? A head shot with a .22. The round won't leave the skull. It will, however, bounce around inside the skull. I've seen CT scans that show the bullet track crossing the brain, bouncing back, crossing it again, bouncing back, crossing it again... I think the most I've seen was 4 tracks across the brain with the bullet stopped about 1/3 of the way across on its 5th trip.

Sure, a 22 will do that, if you hit them right in the eye.

 

[Grenadier]

From far away most rifles will obviously be much more effective at stopping than any handgun but from close up, from the distance the officer was from the perpetrator in the video, I see no reason why a good handgun round shouldn't stop him. The officer was probably using a 9mm or something less powerful as even a 9mm can have good stopping power. At that distance I see no reason why a .357 Magnum or a Colt .45 shouldn't put the bad guy down.

During the 1986 firefight, the bullet that struck Platt was a 115 grain 9 mm Winchester Silvertip hollowpoint. It did exactly what it was supposed to do, and expand a certain amount. The bullet had struck Platt in the arm first, and then entered his torso. Even though the bullet had come a bit short of hitting the heart, this wound was actually fatal, and would have killed Platt sooner or later, but it's amazing what adrenaline can do to prolong someone's last few moments.

A .45 ACP or .357 magnum would most likely not have fared any better, especially since it has already been stated that the shot had struck Platt in the arm first, before entering his chest cavity.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Sure, a 22 will do that, if you hit them right in the eye.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Just to remove any misunderstanding, then, allow me to explicitly state that none of the CTs I mentioned, not a single solitary one, was of a person shot through the eye.

Accuracy is the prime consideration in lethality. Larger calibers allow similar levels of lethality with less accuracy, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. But accuracy (you know, that thing that comes from a "shut up and train" mentality) remains of paramount importance.

 

[jks9199]

From far away most rifles will obviously be much more effective at stopping than any handgun but from close up, from the distance the officer was from the perpetrator in the video, I see no reason why a good handgun round shouldn't stop him. The officer was probably using a 9mm or something less powerful as even a 9mm can have good stopping power. At that distance I see no reason why a .357 Magnum or a Colt .45 shouldn't put the bad guy down.

What's your background in ballistics? Have you paid attention to this sort of discussion in your time at Frontsight? I"m willing to bet that they've discussed it at length... and come to no real conclusion.

There's no magic caliber and short of nukes, no magic "man stopping" round. OK, maybe a .50 I'm willing to bet that DD's ER experience can provide examples of every size round stopping someone -- and not stopping another person. My agency has been carrying .40s for many years. A large neighboring agency recently changed from 9 mm to .40 because they didn't like the performance of the 9 mm round in several shootings. They also changed the type of round (from Hydrashok to HST). Of course, many of the bad guys didn't survive being hit by the 9 mm... and a few only did due to the truly amazing local Level 1 Trauma ER.

We select rounds and guns based on our mission. We want a gun that's going to reliably work, even if terribly maintained. (I've seen guns come out of holsters with cobwebs on them...) That's one reason that Glock is so popular (favorable pricing, and ease of maintenance are among the others). We want a round that'll reliably hit a target, but not go through it. Hence we go with hollow-point, Hydrashok, HST or similar expanding rounds. We pick a caliber that'll work with the guns we buy. Price is considered, as well as availability. (For a while, 9 mm was damn near impossible to get... not that any handgun round was easy at that point, but so much of the 9 mm was sent off to the military first that even LE had orders delayed by over a year...) And the range guys weigh in... We don't want to have rounds that are so big that many of the smaller (yes, that is partly to read female) officers can't qualify because they just can't control the guns. No agency wants to end up in court trying to defend themselves against discriminatory hiring for using a round that's big enough that very few female officers can control it and qualify.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I know that the stopping power of most handguns sucks, relatively speaking. If you really want to stop a perpetrator good its best to use a long arm such as a rifle. However, the officer in the video was right up close to the bad guy, at hand to hand range. At that close I think most handguns would be much better at stopping somebody than from further away. The officer got in a shot to the thoracic cavity which is where you're supposed to shoot somebody if you want to stop them although you want to get in two shots, at least that's what I was taught in class. If that doesn't stop them then you take a shot to the ocular cavity which is a headshot. I think the biggest problem the officer had was that he wasn't able to get more shots in since his weapon had a malfunction. That is the thing about semi autos, they are more prone to malfunctions than revolvers. Also, although this was not covered in the classes I took, I think at that close a .357 or a .45 would be much better at stopping somebody than a 9mm and its much more likely to stop them at one shot, at least when you're that close in. And there are handguns that are good at stopping people. The .44 Magnum was created as a backup weapon for hunting dangerous game and they've been known to put down big bears, so Im quite sure they can put down a person.

 

[jks9199]

I know that the stopping power of most handguns sucks, relatively speaking. If you really want to stop a perpetrator good its best to use a long arm such as a rifle. However, the officer in the video was right up close to the bad guy, at hand to hand range. At that close I think most handguns would be much better at stopping somebody than from further away. The officer got in a shot to the thoracic cavity which is where you're supposed to shoot somebody if you want to stop them although you want to get in two shots, at least that's what I was taught in class. If that doesn't stop them then you take a shot to the ocular cavity which is a headshot. I think the biggest problem the officer had was that he wasn't able to get more shots in since his weapon had a malfunction. That is the thing about semi autos, they are more prone to malfunctions than revolvers. Also, although this was not covered in the classes I took, I think at that close a .357 or a .45 would be much better at stopping somebody than a 9mm and its much more likely to stop them at one shot, at least when you're that close in. And there are handguns that are good at stopping people. The .44 Magnum was created as a backup weapon for hunting dangerous game and they've been known to put down big bears, so Im quite sure they can put down a person.

There is no magic "man stopping" gun or bullet. THERE IS NO MAGIC "MAN STOPPING" GUN OR BULLET. THERE IS NO MAGIC "MAN STOPPING" GUN OR BULLET. There are, indeed, some rounds that are more likely to do that. Any of the enhanced expansion, hollow point rounds are more likely than ball ammo to do so. But not guaranteed. In the video, the narrator describes the shot as being to the abdomen. My guess is that it was a stomach wound, not a shot to the chest. But you can't rule out will to survive. See, for example, Officer Stacy Lim who not only survived being shot in the heart, but killed her attacker.

Malfunctions and semi-autos... Nope. Using quality ammo, and using the gun properly, a semi-auto is not any more prone to malfunction than revolver. They have more malfunctions possible -- but malfunctions in a semi-auto are generally fixable. Most malfunctions in a wheel gun leave you holding a very short, very poor club. In the video, the "jam" is not explained in detail (and the narration is certainly played up for effect...) Notice that the officer, under life or death pressure, didn't even try to resolve the problem with his gun, even though he had several seconds as the assailant lumbered over to him. My guess, though I don't know what gun he carried, is that at the contact range they were fighting, the gun was simply out of battery, and many semi-autos won't fire if they're out of battery. It also may not have cycled properly due to the dynamics of the shot taken... Easy fix, but you have to keep hold of the gun and then apply it.

By the way -- the video doesn't specify the caliber. What would your response be if you learned that they carried .45s? (Actually, I found sources saying it was a .40 Glock. Which won't fire out of battery.)

And I've found a training lesson plan regarding this incident. It describes the jam as a fail to extract/stovepipe type situation. And it says that the suspect got hold of the gun, and tried to shoot Deputy Wilson. (And specifies the would as being to the lower left abdomen.) In fact, if the narrative of the lesson plan is accurate, the voice over narrative in your video has several errors. I kind of trust the lesson plan over a highly emotionally narrative...

 

[PhotonGuy]

Obviously there is no magic stopping round. For one thing you have to hit the person and there is no round that will magically hit a target. If you miss completely your round will obviously have no effect no matter what kind of round it is.

 

[Buka]

If you miss completely your round will obviously have no effect no matter what kind of round it is.

Unless you didn't check background, and hit someone/something else unintentionally. It's the stuff nightmares are made of.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So why aren't officers supposed to carry backup weapons? As somebody said earlier in this thread lots of officers do although they're not supposed to. A backup weapon would've been really helpful in this situation.

 

[Buka]

So why aren't officers supposed to carry backup weapons? As somebody said earlier in this thread lots of officers do although they're not supposed to. A backup weapon would've been really helpful in this situation.

It depends on the charter of the particular department. And they all have differences. There are liability issues when dealing with firearms and Law Enforcement organizations and a ton of both public and media scrutiny. A ton. As a police officer, you can be sure of one thing - every call you go on will have at least one weapon present. Yours. If a department allows a backup weapon there's going to be at least two weapons present.

Although every officer trains in Hand Gun Retention, that training is usually limited to the academy process. Sometimes there may be an "in service" component that might consist of a few hours every two years. Hand Gun Retention is easy...unless someone is actually going for your weapon. Then it's an extremely difficult, life threatening situation. And it's fricken scary, man. It's always scary. When you have a backup weapon you are dealing with the retention of two weapons. And while this is going on, the person is trying to KILL you, and probably others.

Also, as serious as we all take weapons....when was the last time you were aware of the buttons on your shirt? Other than when you put your shirt on or take it off, you probably don't give them much thought throughout the day. When in uniform, day in and day out, your sidearm is just part of your uniform. It's just another tool like your radio and notebook. Except you use your radio and notebook all the time, not so your firearm. When you practice Martial arts you probably don't give much thought to your belt while sparring or rolling, unless it comes undone and trips you. It's just part of your uniform.

A sidearm is "department issued equipment". A very important term. If a department doesn't allow a backup weapon, and you have one, it now falls into a different category. One that you will, unfortunately, probably learn the name of in court. And that ain't good.

 

[jks9199]

So why aren't officers supposed to carry backup weapons? As somebody said earlier in this thread lots of officers do although they're not supposed to. A backup weapon would've been really helpful in this situation.

Different agencies have different policies. One concern for an administrator is that a "backup" quickly becomes a "throwdown" unless it's carefully and thoroughly documented. Another concern is accounting for rounds and bullets. Let's say I decide to carry a backup, and since I'm a fan of Glock, I go with the Glock 27. Same caliber as my issued duty gun, the big mags will even work in the baby Glock. I carry 46 rounds on by bat belt (2 spare magazines of 15, 1 in the pipe, and one 15 round magazine in the gun). I get in a shooting, and I claim I fired 3 rounds. My gun is missing 13. (Not at all uncommon, if you look into it. Lots of reasons not germane to the discussion here.) They can determine that and account for them, right? Except I was carrying a "secret" 10 rounds in my backup... So they collect my gear, and suddenly I didn't have 46, I had as many as 56. But they didn't issue the gun, they don't know if I was carrying 9 or 10 rounds in it... So how many rounds did I really fire? Did I get sneaky and swap a few from the backup to cover for extra shots? And it gets even more complicated for the investigation if I'm carrying something of a different caliber... Then they have to account for my duty rounds, any backup rounds I may have fired, and the bad guys rounds. There are also issues about how to carry, how to secure a backup at jails (What if the cop forgets he's got an extra gun carried on his vest and takes it into the jail? Could that be a nightmare? Yeah...)... Do you allow, or require carrying a backup? Issue or permit the officer to buy and carry a personal weapon (more admin headaches, either way). Just a lot of things that have to be taken into account for carrying an extra gun. My agency actually limits what we can carry in terms of use of force items to what they issue (or what we were born with...)

I'm not suggesting that not permitting a backup is a good policy. I'm simply recognizing that there are justifiable reasons for the policy.