Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on July 05, 2005, 08:08:26 PM
-
Hi All,
Saw something today that really disturbed me, perhaps unduly. Wanted to get the opinion of the Law Enforcement affiliated members of the BB on it.
Traveling back from Charlotte, I stopped at a stop light at a four way intersection.
To my left on the intersecting street, just short of the light I noticed that a Sheriff's cruiser had just pulled over a sedan with two males in it.
+ <----- I was here
^
Cop car behind sedan
The door of the cop car opened and out stepped a little female deputy, about the size that when she puts on her utility belt, her weight is doubled. I didn't think much of it till I saw her reach down and try to release the holster catch on her pistol as she was walking up to the car. She fumbled it and had to stop and look down to her side to get it released. It was at this point I noticed how nervous she was (and that she was a lefty). After she had the catch off, she kept it holstered, but wrapped her hand around the grip and kept walking up to the car. At this point I started thinking, "they get out of the car and she is set to go only to deadly force, and here I am stuck directly in her line of fire."
Literally, had she opened fire, she would have either hit cars coming through the intersection towards her to the left, or more likely my car or the minivan behind me as we were almost directly behind the pulled up car if fired at from her angle. Once she was at the window of the stopped car, the backstop on the other side became school. Even better.
Lets just say I was happy to see license and registration come through the window, and happier still to drive away.
My questions are these:
1) Is no care taken regarding where you stop a car? It would have made infinitely more sense for her to follow the vehicle through the intersection and stop it further down the other road. There were just fields down there.
2) Should a 95 lbs. female deputy be stopping a car with two large males by herself? Why not call in backup first?
Was this a good stop?
- SEAGOON
-
I'm not a police officer first of all.
Heres my take on it. She should of pulled the car over near those open fields you mentioned and not at the intersection.
Her sidearm is the equalizing force between the 95lb female cop and the large male driver and passanger. Not too many people will argue with a cop that has her/his hand on the pistol grips.
You saw her struggling with her catch release on her holster. Maybe she is a brand spanking new rookie with a brand new holster? Evidently she was rather nervous.
I was pulled over before on a very busy road and the highway patrol officer asked me politely if I would drive up the road to a church parking lot so we would not impede any other drivers.
I complied of course.
I chalk up your observations to a new rookie nervous at a traffic stop. She made the wrong choice but the situation worked out in her favor. Why? Shes armed. Bad choice for a pullover at an intersection tho.
-
Seagoon,
I'm not a police officer either, but I have some feedback that I believe to be true based on past conversations I've had with law enforcement.
1. Every traffic stop is an unknown, and can turn bad fast. Any cop (or pilot) who doesn't have a healthy dose of nerves can get into trouble fast and wake up dead. I see a correlation between flying and the law here.
2. She has training and equipment that are equalizers to two big guys.
I perceive (this isn't an accusation, just saying what it looks like) thinly veiled sexism. Let her do her job, and respectfully, save your 'concern' for someone who requests it. Your attention is most likely unwelcome and an insult to her hard work to work her way to where she is now.
Modern law enforcement is a tough business, and you can't just waltz into the job. To get the badge these days, you have to prove some serious competency, and the grandfatherly concern of a gentleman who might (and this doesn't necessarily apply to you) think that a woman's place is back in the kitchen where, as God directs, she is subservient to his wishes as head of the household and raises the children.
I don't mean to suggest that this represents your views, but it is certainly a common one from people who have started with some of the same observations you made.
-
Chairboy,
I couldn't disagree more.
Barrett Tillman has made the statement that, in terms of women's rights, the Navy is the most thoroughly politicized branch of the military.
The same might be said for many police and fire departments. Not to downplay the female officers' work in attaining her position, but to my mind it is doubtful her training would prepare her for the physical challenge of tackling two grown, 200 pound males, bent on physical violence.
I know a number of people who work in the Arkansas State Penal System and they all have similar opinions of female guards physical abilities. In altercations with violent felons the females invariably back away from the situation and let the male guards handle it, even if the male guards are outnumbered. Given the reality of that situation, what does that say about the usefulness of female guards in a male prison? Or about the system that okays them for such duty?
Good intentions aside, there are many instances in which adopting politically correct stances can prove to be dangerous to the people they are meant to benefit. Oh sure, there are some women who can pick up a refrigerator. But how many of them have you met during your life?
I bet that the number is distressingly low.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Location: Sure, you give some consideration to the location that you fire up your lights. You generally try to avoid intersections and such, mostly for your safety as you don't want to be hit by a car. As far as the school, I'd only consider that if it were a stop that I was already expecting to go south. In which case I might have already called for a slow-rolled backup.
That being said, people do some retarded things when the lights fire up behind them. Some will drive for a half mile looking for a place to stop, others will stop in the center turn lane of a 5 lane road, others will slam on the brakes wherever they are, hop curbs, or even pull into the dark alleys between businesses. You can influence where the stop occurs, but only the other driver controls where he actually stops.
Holster: Cops get new holsters as the newest thing comes out. Maybe she had just received a new one and it wasn't broken in, or muscle memory had told her to draw like she would have with her old one. Maybe she was just having a fumblefingered moment. Could be a million explanations. Whether its a mistake or lack of training or whatever, hopefully she'll take it home that night and practice until it comes out easier.
Backup: Nobody wants to be the guy who calls for backup every time he makes a stop. It's completely up to her, and she's taking into account a million factors that are too numerous to list.
95 pound cops: Sure, they don't want to get in a fight. I'm not a heavy guy by any means -- I'm only 5'10" and 160 lbs, and I wouldn't let some 6'2" 300 pound 40 year old tell me that I'm too small to do the job unless he's a professional bodybuilder himself. Physical size is not even 1% of the job, and people who don't have it can generally use tactics, equipment, and their noggins to avoid a fight they can't win.
-
I have asked every cop I have had the chance to talk to about traffic stops and if they mind if you keep driving, (with some kind of acknowledgment) that you saw them to a safer place, IE highway patrol puts his lights on behind me, I waved, and drove to the next exit and pulled into a parking lot. The Guys I asked always said they prefer that cause being on the side of a busy street is a good way to get hit.
Local cops have started to leave half their car in the road, so if something gets hit its the car and not them, but this blocks trafic.
185 cop could have trouble with two big guys. a 95 pound one is going to have more, you can have all the training in the world and a big mean pissed off guy can ruin your day.
A smaller person is going to have more trouble as a cop. They wont intimidate as much, they will need to use more personal force then the a bigger cop. They may have to resort to deadly force much faster.
should a 95 pound fire fighter who cant carry a hose up the ladder or a person down be on the job?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Local cops have started to leave half their car in the road, so if something gets hit its the car and not them, but this blocks trafic.
Actually, leaving the car blocking like they do, is a liability thing. Once they stop you they are responsible for you and your vehicle. Having worked a military police department this is what we are taught to do to prevent the driver's car from being hit. Seems stupid but a bet some sleezy lawyers have managed to win lawsuits because someone's car was damaged while they were pulled over.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Actually, leaving the car blocking like they do, is a liability thing. Once they stop you they are responsible for you and your vehicle. Having worked a military police department this is what we are taught to do to prevent the driver's car from being hit. Seems stupid but a bet some sleezy lawyers have managed to win lawsuits because someone's car was damaged while they were pulled over.
Its anoying when they do it an it blocks trafic, it would make more sense for them to get on the load speaker and tell the dimwit to pull over into the parking lot that is 20 feet further up the street.
Still if it keeps the person care from being hit it protects them too.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Was this a good stop?
My sister is a 5'7" 120 lbs cop.
No, it was not.
If she felt the stop was high risk enough, she should have called for another cruiser.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I perceive (this isn't an accusation, just saying what it looks like) thinly veiled sexism. Let her do her job, and respectfully, save your 'concern' for someone who requests it. Your attention is most likely unwelcome and an insult to her hard work to work her way to where she is now.
Chairboy,
No, actually I was more concerned about being the back-stop for a roadside shoot-out than who was doing the shooting. I used to shoot at a NJ firearms range frequented by local police, many of whom came in to practice prior to qualifying. Some of the worst shooting I've ever seen in my life (and I was an instructor for a University rifle and pistol club in the UK, so I've seen some baaaad shooting) was done by those guys. Including one time when one of the two guys next to me accidently discharged his weapon through the upper wall of the booth and into the ceiling above me. I know that there are probably a lot of local police who are sharpshooters, but too few of the ones I've encountered could hit the 10 ring in a non-threatening situation in a firing range.
So my only assessment was, she fires, and those rounds are coming this way. Oh joy.
But if you want to discuss the "thinly veiled sexism" angle. I'm not the guy to do it, but I do know a few who would probably love to take it up with you. I spent about 45 minutes a few Sundays ago as guys in SF and the regular army swapped "women in the Army" horror stories. For instance, one ex-D.I. told of how the commandant had instructed all of them that the men would carry the women's packs in addition to their own because his school was going to a 100% graduation rate for the women. There were more gripes than I care to go into, but these guys are all veterans, officers and enlisted, all with combat deployments (with one exception), and overall their impression is that as far as the Army is concerned one woman does not equal one man. If you want to tell them they are a bunch of backwards sexists who need to get with our more enlightened times, then I'll let you be the one to do it because somehow I wouldn't personally feel qualified to do so...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Chairboy,
No, actually I was more concerned about being the back-stop for a roadside shoot-out than who was doing the shooting. I used to shoot at a NJ firearms range frequented by local police, many of whom came in to practice prior to qualifying. Some of the worst shooting I've ever seen in my life (and I was an instructor for a University rifle and pistol club in the UK, so I've seen some baaaad shooting) was done by those guys. Including one time when one of the two guys next to me accidently discharged his weapon through the upper wall of the booth and into the ceiling above me. I know that there are probably a lot of local police who are sharpshooters, but too few of the ones I've encountered could hit the 10 ring in a non-threatening situation in a firing range.
So my only assessment was, she fires, and those rounds are coming this way. Oh joy.
But if you want to discuss the "thinly veiled sexism" angle. I'm not the guy to do it, but I do know a few who would probably love to take it up with you. I spent about 45 minutes a few Sundays ago as guys in SF and the regular army swapped "women in the Army" horror stories. For instance, one ex-D.I. told of how the commandant had instructed all of them that the men would carry the women's packs in addition to their own because his school was going to a 100% graduation rate for the women. There were more gripes than I care to go into, but these guys are all veterans, officers and enlisted, all with combat deployments (with one exception), and overall their impression is that as far as the Army is concerned one woman does not equal one man. If you want to tell them they are a bunch of backwards sexists who need to get with our more enlightened times, then I'll let you be the one to do it because somehow I wouldn't personally feel qualified to do so...
- SEAGOON
With my experience in basic, one woman equals one man. The only thing different are the P.T. requirements and those are due to biological factors not favoritism.
-
Size and/or gender of the officer doesnt matter much on something like a traffic stop in town like that. If they were out in the middle of nowhere, maybe. Intimidation does factor in when there's no one else around to see what happens. Also, as Tarmac said, there could be alot of reasons why she had trouble with the holster. In competitions you learn real quick how important it is to be comfortable with the rig you use. Cops dont have much in the way of options, but it makes it all the more important that they become familiar with every inch of that belt and train their muscle memory. She was probably new, given your description, but I try not to assume either way. No matter how routine this might have been, adrenaline almost always kicks in when you are confronting someone, no matter how minor the infraction. Different people react to the adrenaline rush in different ways.
As for her approach to the car, and the surrounding area? Well, all that stuff has to be processed fairly quickly, when other things are on your mind. Without any actual fear that he might be dangerous, she did the right thing by keeping him in the car where his mobility is limited, and made the best of the situation. She may never have noticed the school, and it may never have crossed her mind that a miss or ricochet could go that way. It often doesnt occur to people who arent comfortable with guns or are inexperienced. Some police officers are in these categories, right or wrong. She had to focus on the situation in front of her, and make firm decisions one way or the other. Showing distraction or indecision is a good way to turn an otherwise calm situation scary. Either way, she did what she had to do and the guy left. No matter if she was scared, new, freaked out, or high as a kite, and even if things werent ideal, I'd say it was handled as well as could be expected (of course I wasnt there, I didnt see it, and I know nothing of the situation except what you described). The only way to know just how much of the scene had processed in her brain was to have it go bad and see how she reacted. Thankfully, that didnt happen.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
With my experience in basic, one woman equals one man. The only thing different are the P.T. requirements and those are due to biological factors not favoritism.
Agree for the most part... although the female platoons had higher attrition rates compared to the men due to what you mentioned - physical/biological inadequacies.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Agree for the most part... although the female platoons had higher attrition rates compared to the men due to what you mentioned - physical/biological inadequacies.
Well we had coed platoons, essentially a 3:1 ratio of male squads to female squads in a platoon. I would say that the biggest problem (that I saw, at least) for the females is attitude, not anything physical or biological.
-
Hi All,
One last thought, I asked because never having been a police officer or done a traffic stop, to tell the truth, I didn't know. My desire was simply get a take on it from the folks here who had.
The thing most disturbing to me was simply that I had always drilled into the lads and ladies I was training the cardinal rule: "Before you fire be sure you know where every round is going to stop, because you can never, ever, take it back."
The same thing was true of the hunting courses I've taken, so the idea of being ready to shoot when the two likely "stoping places" for rounds where either A) Other Cars or B) A Public School struck me as violations of my Prime Directive of Shooting and not worth it for the sake of a moving violation.
Still if that's the way its done by the PD, then thats the way its done.
Eh... Ok then, good stop, carry on officer.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Well we had coed platoons, essentially a 3:1 ratio of male squads to female squads in a platoon. I would say that the biggest problem (that I saw, at least) for the females is attitude, not anything physical or biological.
Ah - USMC training is segregated.
Plenty of the women made better Marines than the men as far as I could see... still wouldnt want them in front line combat roles, though for alot of reasons.
-
It's admirable your concern for the officer's safety Seagoon, but they can handle themselves or they wouldn't be there.
Does no good to speculate on "what ifs", if you know what I mean.
Les
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Ah - USMC training is segregated.
Plenty of the women made better Marines than the men as far as I could see... still wouldnt want them in front line combat roles, though for alot of reasons.
I agree to a point, e.g. Jessica Lynch. She was captured because her weapon jammed and she 'forgot' how to perform SPORTS on it.
-
as a citizen and a taxpayer I don't think that 95 lb women should even be on the force except behind a desk or at the jail to search women prisoners.
Cops should be big and retire young.. it is just a fact of life and of nature. They should be able to pass rigorous physical testing.
The only reason that female cops work as well as they do is that unless the crook is insane or drugged... he fears the badge... no criminal ever fears a woman cop herself. If they did not think that they would be hunted down by every cop in the country they would simply beat the crap out of every woman cop that bothered them..
The rest of us are not violent criminals so it doesn't matter.
lazs
-
Seagoon. Maybe the car had been pulled over for sounding the horn - Are you sure she wasn't just changing the batteries in her taser? Oh wait, it was NC not KS. Never mind.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It's admirable your concern for the officer's safety Seagoon, but they can handle themselves or they wouldn't be there.
Does no good to speculate on "what ifs", if you know what I mean.
Les
His concern was not just the safety of the officer, but the safety of everyone involved.
And if you think that law enforcement is immune to having people get hired who can't do the job, you are sadly mistaken. Worse still is the fact that when someone is hired but cannot do the job, most often that is found out too late, often with tragic results, and not just for the person who could not do the job. It is not just females either.
By the way, in MANY places, officers are hired and sent out on the job BEFORE ever going through the acedemy.
Honestly, law enforcement officers do not get the training they really need in about 90% of all agencies.
Their marksmanship is often tragically poor, and their training in CQB is non existent. Their training in hand to hand non lethal force situations is abysmal.
They are most often required to have a degree in sociology, psychology, or other ICBS, but most of them have almost no training in marksmanship, basic entry level martial arts, use of cover, or any other skill likely to save their lives should the untrhinkable become reality.
While it is true that many officers go through an entire carrer without ever drawing their service weapon, much less discharging it, they should all still be required to have the skills required to survive, and to make sure the criminal is dealt with. That is what they are there for, and what the job is really about. You can NEVER predict WHICH officer will be faced with the horrible situation, therefore they should all be trained and competant to face it.
It is not necessary for all officers to be SWAT/hostage rescue level personnel, it IS necessary that all officers be trained and competent enough to survive until the SWAT/hostage rescue units get there when they are needed. It's really stupid to have to have dead patrol officers laying on the ground when the SWAT/hostage rescue unit arrives. And that is EXACTLY what the poor training, or lack of training, results in.
-
Thank you Savage.
Les
-
I hope y'all aren't suggesting that being female automatically counts as evidence of incompetence, because that seems implicit in Virgil's post.
-
Odd
It is not just females either.
That seems to imply he was not just talking about females.
-
True, but I said it was implicit, not overt.
Leslie is saying that she can handle herself, and Virgil's post, while couched in the general, was in essence disagreeing with Leslie's post. Working backwards from there, following algebraic logic, the implication is that a female officer is less likely to be able to handle a situation then the male counterpart.
I'm no bleeding heart liberal, but I think it's unwise to assume that a physical strength advantage is as significant a force multiplier as some posters would seem to suggest it is.
Regarding the safety of bystanders, we have Seagoon's description to go on and his implicit assumption that she would have blindly fired through the assailant towards our resident pastor. I respect his opinion that that may have happened, but I feel that it's an opinion that's coming from a very selective eye for competence.
-
physical strength never seems to be much of a factor until you are up against it.
lazs
-
It was NOT implicit, nor was it implied.
I said he was ASSUMING that because she got the job, she was able to do the job. I said that was no more true of law enforcement than any other job. I said it did not just apply to females. I do not know how to make that more clear. I suppose caps and bold type are necessary (Lord, I hope not).
I cannot help what you read into what I wrote, I wrote it as plainly as possible. I tried to avoid a WOT.
Perhaps, and this is directed at NO ONE IN PARTICULAR (note the big disclaimer), it would be better if people stopped reading into things what they think they see or what they want to see.
-
Fair enough.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Thank you Savage.
Les
I don't think there's any need to thank me for anything.
I guess I have you confused with someone else, maybe from somewhere else, I thought you were in law enforcement, or maybe were.
In any event, I was not singling you out at all, but rather pointing out that it is often assumed, even by people in law enforcement, that you have to be trained and competent, and suited for the job, before you get the badge, the service weapon, and the uniform.
Again, nothing personal was intended, it just happened that you posted the assumption.
-
Well, actually I was implying Seagoon was a bit of a coward concerned for himself and all. But in the big picture it doesn't matter.
I was not standing up for the cops and Lord knows I certainly don't have the courage Seagoon has.:D
Les
-
"Force multipliers" are a wonderful aid to jobs, but you must not allow yourself to count on them and have no other way of getting the job done. Hence my remarks regarding a lack of training in CQB and at least basic entry level martial arts.
Back up is often late, and sometimes never comes at all.
Batons are dropped, or taken.
Pepper spray is not 100% reliable.
Tasers don't always work, nor do other "stun gun" type tools.
Firearms malfunction, and are also dropped, or otherwise become unavailable.
For the above reasons, NDP (Non Dedicated Personnel) should be banned from the job. Being a law enforcement officer should require 100% proficiency with your duty weapon, your backup weapon, and your shotgun/rifle heavy weapon, with required practice and training on a monthly basis.
Further, at least basic entry level martial arts should be required, and should be required at a greater level with decreased size and strength. This too should be maintained on a regular basis, as part of a required PT routine.
It is the DUTY of an officer to be able to protect self, other officers, and the public in general, with the best possible proficiency.
A badge, a uniform, and a weapon will only get you so far, and if you do not have the rest of what it takes, and, in the worst situations it will ONLY get you far enough to be in over your head.
-
Hello Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Regarding the safety of bystanders, we have Seagoon's description to go on and his implicit assumption that she would have blindly fired through the assailant towards our resident pastor. I respect his opinion that that may have happened, but I feel that it's an opinion that's coming from a very selective eye for competence.
Just mildly curious as to what a selective eye for competence consists of?
BTW - I don't assume that the deputy would have fired blindly at all. I assume that had the deputy felt significantly threatened and the perps did not respond to commands, she would have had no choice but to fire her weapon, which was probably either a 9mm or a .40 S&W probably with at lease ten rounds in the mag. I am assuming that the majority of the shots fired (as they are in most exchanges with police) would not have hit their intended target or in this case targets. Even if they did, at that range, there is a good chance that shots (jacketed bullets in particular) would pass through the body of the target and continue on. I am no expert Chairboy, and certainly would not be able to assess the situation as well as many of the people here, but I've been shooting for long enough to realize when a line drawn from the shooter to the target and then extended on ends near me and the people around me.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon,
I saw this and I figure that ther best explanation is one done in person. With just a bit of luck I can explain it when we get together tomorrow.
For some others. Frankly the single most dangerous situation a Police Officer gets involved in is a traffic stop. It sounds silly but think about it. You pull over a car with an unknown number of occupants. Never assume the number of heads visible through the rear window equals the number of people in the car.
You can never assume the person in the car is just the average joe (or josephine) that screws something up and commits a violation and is therefore harmless. Remember that the guy responsible for the Oklahoma bombing was found as part of a traffic stop. It works that way for armed robbers and other felons as well. The single most common mode of transportation in the US is a car and most folks use one including felons.
The person in the car has all the advantages. If they intend to shoot you they will almost certainly get at least the first shot and frequently the second as well. They can already be ready with weapon in hand. If they decide to shoot you your reaction time will come into play. It will take an average of 3/4 of a second to recognize the danger then do something to react to it. Given the circumstances, it is possible to get off 3 or more shots before a reaction can happen. IF the target actually reacts instead of freezing in disbelief. The reaction is where training comes into play. You will react like you train. If you just go through the motions and do the minimum to get by in training that's likely to be the way you react and may be how your life ends.
Someone made the statement that the number one concern in any shooting os the safety of the backstop or downrange area. That's true on a range. In the street the number one concern is going home at the end of the day. Both sides of the fight are thinking that they do not want to die there. If they have coherent thoughts at the time. Panic happens to folks, especially those who are not expecting a life threatening situation to happen just then. Tachypsychia (sp?) including the resultant tunnel vision can remove other considerations from your thoughts as you focus on the weapon and or threat. The rest of the world ceases to exist due to physical reactions to danger. Complacency is a fickle situation but deadly. Again it's a situation of experiance and training. If you train realistically and thoughtfully you are more likely to react in a good manner to continue to breathe.
It's quite true that there are a number of under trained Officers out there. It isn't their fault, there are over 7,000 seperate Police agencies in the US and some are very small and underfunded. The agency has neither the people, funds or facilities to train to any real professional standard. Some train by having thier folks go to another agencies academy, some by going to an accredited college level institution with studies in Law Enforcement. This still won't address the tactical or field training. Another point is that no matter how advanced the training the student still knows they are in training. When the real world happens it's a differant situation, non static and few to no totally correct options with a multitude of bad options. In plain language, feces occurs and you must deal with what is happening as it happens. If you do not then someone else will be responding to your homicide.
-
If those two guys wanted to rip that officer apart, not even the gun would stop them. Any police officer (man or woman) is notorious for bad aim.
Add onto that fact that I'd be willing to bet at her size, she wouldn't be able to handle a .45. So the idea of her stopping these two guys suddenly becomes even more laughable, especially if she only has a 9mm.
It's unfortunate, but for our safety and theirs the standards that need to be passed need to be the same for both sexes.
All the things I said about a 90 pound female officer I'd say the same about a 90 pound male officer.
EDIT: Seagoon, if she is 95 pounds, she would not be carrying a .40 . The max she would have is 9mm. She just would not be able to control the gun. You can't make the gun smaller to better suit her size either. If you do suddenly the recoil is twice as much and she's still up **** creek.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Someone made the statement that the number one concern in any shooting os the safety of the backstop or downrange area. That's true on a range. In the street the number one concern is going home at the end of the day.
and Chairboys post too
so you could be sitting like Seagoon in a car full of preschoolers when Miss Piggy starts busting all kinds of caps in your direction, how fun.
-
No 40 Short & Weak I've ever fired, regardless of the weapon or the cartridge, has ever come close to double the recoil of a 9MM. In fact, the recoil is strikingly similar, not surprising given how close they are ballistically.
The average 40 Short & Weak load fired by law enforcement is a 150 grain bullet at just barely over 1000 feet per second (muzzle energy 350 foot pounds).
By comparison, the average 9MM load fired by law enforcement is a 125 grain bullet at around 1100 feet per second (muzzle energy 330 foot pounds).
You'll note a muzzle energy difference of less than 20 foot pounds, about 350 and about 330. The 9MM tends to run to the high side of that velocity, often around 1150 feet per second.
Very little difference.
The 40 Short & Weak and the 9MM are most often found in guns built on the same frame, and even the cartridge size is very similar. Usually, the 40 Short & Weak has one or two less rounds, the frame of the gun is the same, only the barrel and magazine are really different. Often even the recoil springs are the same, meaning the power of the cartridge transfered to the slide and frame is VERY similar.
There is only 0.045" difference in bore size. In fact, the 40 Short & Weak was developed by Smith & Wesson because the FBI felt that the 10MM standard load of a 180 grain bullet at 1200 feet per second was too likely to over penetrate and generated too much recoil. They requested that Smith & Wesson develop a 10MM or 40 caliber cartridge that was very similar in size and power to the 9MM, so as to fit the same weapons with high capacity magazines and small enough grips to acomodate most anyone.
In truth, the 40 Short & Weak was developed mostly in response to the "Miami Shootout" where Jerry Dove's 9MM Silvertip failed to stop one of two bank and armored car robbers Michael Platt who managed to kill Dove and his partner Ben Grogan, and critically wound several other agents. The sad fact is, the 40 Short & Weak nearly duplicates the performance of the 9MM round that "failed".
By comparison the 45 ACP 230 grain at around 900 feet per second is around 410 foot pounds, but felt recoil is not TERRIBLY increased.
The 10MM with a 180 grain bullet at around 1200 feet per second easily exceeds 550 foot pounds, but is not nearly so manageable for the less serious shooter. You can also use a 155 grain bullet at 1350 feet per second for around 630 foot pounds.
The 357 Magnum round we carried was a 125 grain bullet at around 1650 feet per second, it was a +P round, rated number one in one shot stops, with the 230 grain 45 ACP a close second. The muzzle energy is a whopping 750 foot pounds!
The reason the 45 ACP scores so close to the 357 Magnum, despite the 350 foot pound difference in muzzle energy, is the 45 starts out 0.100" bigger in diameter, and the hollow cavity expands quickly to a far larger slug than the 126 grain 357 Magnum.
The 357 was not nearly so bad as it was suggested, even the women easily managed the recoil of the Smith & Wesson 686 Distinguished Combat Magnum we were issued. A couple of well under 130# women actually qualified with a score of around 90%.
Believe it or not, the 44 Magnum (my favorite revolver, but not my favorite carry gun) hasn't scored quite so well in the one shot stop category. The 180 grain bullet at 1650 feet per second scores nearly 1100 foot pounds of muzzle energy. That is rated as the number 2 round for the 44 Magnum. Number one is a 210 Silvertip at around 1350 feet per second, it only scores 850 foot pounds of muzzle energy. Evidently, unless used against body armor (the two lower levels are not rated to stop a 180 grain 44 Magnum) the 180 grain load is too hot. Last I looked, the 44 Magnum was around #5 on the one shot stop list percentage wise.
Needless to say, my personal choices for carry guns include a 45 ACP, a 357 Magnum, a 44 Special, and a 45 Colt. While the 9MM and the 40 Short & Weak might be okay, I prefer a more powerful round rather than a larger magazine. Between 5 and 7 rounds is about enough to cover all I've ever seen used in a personal defense incident, usually with plenty to spare. In a situation a law enforcement officer could possibly find himself (or herself) in, where a high volume firefight MIGHT happen as a one in a million encounters, I'd still rather have 5-7 shots of a more powerful round between reloads and simply carry one or two more magazines or speed loaders.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If those two guys wanted to rip that officer apart, not even the gun would stop them. Any police officer (man or woman) is notorious for bad aim.
Add onto that fact that I'd be willing to bet at her size, she wouldn't be able to handle a .45. So the idea of her stopping these two guys suddenly becomes even more laughable, especially if she only has a 9mm.
It's unfortunate, but for our safety and theirs the standards that need to be passed need to be the same for both sexes.
All the things I said about a 90 pound female officer I'd say the same about a 90 pound male officer.
EDIT: Seagoon, if she is 95 pounds, she would not be carrying a .40 . The max she would have is 9mm. She just would not be able to control the gun. You can't make the gun smaller to better suit her size either. If you do suddenly the recoil is twice as much and she's still up **** creek.
Afraid I have to agree with the others on this one and disagree with you. I've seen little 4'11" ladies pick up a .44 Magnum and fire off 5 rounds, hitting the target every time. Size may matter for shooting a particular gun comfortably, but it has nothing to do with handling recoil or getting your shots to count.
As for the .40 S&W in particular, it again depends on the gun. And the rounds being shot through it. My Para-Ordnance .40 is at least as big as any .45 ACP, bigger than most I've shot. And here I have to disagree with Savige, as the 150 grain JHP CorBons I've shot (which were law enforcement rounds) were rated at 1200 fps/480ftlbs. I usually use 135 grains myself, for a little more velocity, but the 150s are perfectly capable rounds. I do like the .45 better, but there's nothing wrong with the .40.
I'd still carry my Rossi .357 any day of the week over anything else though, given a choice.
-
the 44 mag with the older loads is the best stopper in thin skinned game like deer and pigs. It does a far better job than the .357 but...
These are not people stopper loads. The 44 overpenetrates. several new loads like the cor bon and hydroshock seem to indicate the 44 mag is at the top of the heap... 44mags just aren't used in that many shootings tho.
The 44's in the marshal study did all stop the bad guy... just not instantly in every case.. the damage was ugly tho. In most cases... If I could... I would choose the 44 for versatility... If I had to shoot through anything at all.... I would rather do it with the 44 than even the .357. The older 44 rounds prove that with people... velocity and bullet size/energy are not all there is to the equation.
My 5'2" daughter doesn't find the recoil of a 44 much more than fun... one of my 6'2 250 lb workers is scared witless by it... it doesn't take much strength to shoot handguns. I was not wanting to eliminate women from the force based on recoil sensitivity.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
and Chairboys post too
so you could be sitting like Seagoon in a car full of preschoolers when Miss Piggy starts busting all kinds of caps in your direction, how fun.
The corolary is that you could be sitting in a vehicle loaded with kids and the person in the car being stopped could spray in your direction as well. Until the LE Officer stopped the felon. So what's your point? I just pointed out that tactical considerations are not the same as they are on a range where things are nice and sanitary. Survival is the main concern in a fight to the death.
The individual intent on killing or wounding a Police Officer is the one picking the time and location of the fight. The Officer has to react to it the best they can and real life is not the hollywierd shootouts which is the only experiance 99.9999% on this bbs have. Very few here have trainined in the area and have any benefit of any idea of how this situation develops. Until you yourself get any training in the situation (from a reputable source not the TV) and know what the ramifications are for an ambush you really don't have any perspective on it. Stopping a car and finding a gun or knife in the hand of the driver is very different than simply sitting in your chair and posting about it.
-
3 calibers I have not sen mentioned are the new .45 GAP
And the 41 mag.
And the .50 AE
Hmmm just thought of the 454 casull
LOL my bad nevermind!!!!!!!!