\
Interesting. I'll check with John Parsons. His companies ammunition would be referred to as re-manufactured ammunition. I may well be wrong here. I will call him this morning.
Take Care
Bob
The return to the 9mm Luger for police in Canada
- Thread starter 1ABNDT
- Start date
Interesting. I'll check with John Parsons. His companies ammunition would be referred to as re-manufactured ammunition. I may well be wrong here. I will call him this morning.
Take Care
Bob
Right you are. I checked with Custom and they do NOT sell to Corrections like I thought they did. My apologies to all. I must be getting old that is another thing I was wrong about. Anyway thank you for correcting me I am wiser for it.
Take Care
Bob
your california cop is speaking of a different era, wound research currently show the exact opposite of what he's saying. The tech put into 9mm bullets now is not equally put into 40s. The Feebs went to great lengths to try and keep the 40 and went back to 9mm instead, for a reason. The wound channels from modern 9mm are the same or better than current 40 and 45. Faster bullets is better, when engineered right, easier to shoot and hit targets is better, carrying more is better. From every aspect that matters 9mm is better now and has been for awhile. Agencies would spend the extra on 40 if they thought it was worth it those budgets are easy to get. But they don't, for a reason, there is no advantage gained by sticking with 40. Hell 9mm is better enough to justify having to go through massive armory dumps of weapons and ammo, instead of keeping. Selling stuff at a loss just to get rid of it and change over to 9mm. To actually get a step up on 9mm you need to go to magnum cartridges or rifles. Things change, improve and move on from other things. Holding onto old tech without the science to back it up is a bad decision.
He just retired a couple of years ago which does not make one era in most minds.
Your argument ignores the elephant on the room. You assume the decision to move to the 9MM was something other than cost driven. Once you understand the primary driving force eg budgets then you build your case for the decision to make the switch. The easiest out is to claim the 9MM has been the beneficiary of magical design developments that have overcome it's weight and diameter shortfalls if indeed the latter two ever played a part in any performance shortfall the 9MM had.
I don't believe the 9MM had any performance disadvantage before the wonder treatment you attribute to today's 9MM bullet. Whatever design change that has come along also has been applied to the 40 cal. .357Sig, and .357Mag. All three, along with the 9MM will kill. Where the former three cartridges differ from the 9MM is they are all more powerful but they are also more expensive to shoot in quantity. Why incur the added cost of running the three when the 9MM will do the job.
Death. if that is the objective comes from three sources:
1. lack of oxygen to the brain due to a drop in blood pressure.
2. destruction or interruption to the bodies nervous system
3. destruction of a major organ that attributes to 1 or 2
None of the pistol cartridges carried by LEO's or civilians are particularly good at this job compared to a center fired rifle or 12 gauge shotgun but the latter two are a bit awkward to carry on a belt and the public optics aren't that great.
As to performance direct me to the independent study drawn from actual shootings where the 9MM outperformed the 40cal in a meaningful practical way or that modern 9MM designs are substantially better than those of two decades ago. I doubt you can. You will get a lot of comments from an ex this or an ex that claiming some advantage but they won't be quoting any real life statistics that provide practical differences between one round over the another
Aside form actual cost I would suggest the next two reason to move to the 9MM was less recoil which should allows for more accurate shooting. The recoil difference is significant. This also provides for better performance by those who are recoil sensitive. The 9MM double stack guns carry more rounds to the dance as well and if you miss a lot that tends to be an advantage. A quick check with the NYPD stats indicate between 1990 and 2000 the average number of rounds per shots fired per officer was 5.2 in actual shootings. Their average hit per shots fired ran 15%. Google is your friend you can come up with any number of stats to justify your position.
The speed of the 115gr 9MM bullets, even at Plus P would not exceed much over 1250 fps out of a 4" barrel and that has not changed in 50 years. Less velocity as you move up in bullet weight. One reason why the heavier 40, and 45acp bullets have gained some expansion improvements with the design changes in bullet construction. You can look up the expansion differences between the 9MM, 40 cal and .357Mag etc. There is not a significant difference in diameter. .40cal aka 10MM bullets and above tend to be as big or bigger than the 9MM fully expanded but not significantly. Again google it Rob. Most of the commentary I have listened to anecdotal at best or worse yet, pure parroting of marketing hype. Then you read boring analytical data drawn from actual shootings and you quickly realize there are to many variables to draw hard conclusions from any of it. But you can choose to explain the data in any way you wish to support what ever action or inaction you wish to pursue. RG from the NYPD stats above why did they ever incur the costs of switching to the pistol from the revolver. The mean average per officer shooting was only 5.2!
The local CN Police I have shot with, and it has been about five years now was shooting a Glock or M&P 40cal. At the time I wad focused on the M&P 9MM and I do recollect the 180 gr cartridges he was using had significantly more recoil than the 147 and 115 factory rounds I was shooting. For reasons I won't explain I have at hand 50 rounds of the old Black Talons once used by the Queens Cowboys. Not sure if they fit your new version of the 9MM or old but from firing them into milk jugs and the odd apple they do seem to be capable cartridges.
Good talking to you. Will settle this over a beer next time I am down in the 'wack.
Stay Dry
Bob
PS In any event we have somewhat different views coming from two different perspectives. Next time you read an article praising one gun or cartridge over another ask yourself who is paying for the article or why is the author writing it and for whom.
Your argument ignores the elephant on the room. You assume the decision to move to the 9MM was something other than cost driven. Once you understand the primary driving force eg budgets then you build your case for the decision to make the switch. The easiest out is to claim the 9MM has been the beneficiary of magical design developments that have overcome it's weight and diameter shortfalls if indeed the latter two ever played a part in any performance shortfall the 9MM had.
I don't believe the 9MM had any performance disadvantage before the wonder treatment you attribute to today's 9MM bullet. Whatever design change that has come along also has been applied to the 40 cal. .357Sig, and .357Mag. All three, along with the 9MM will kill. Where the former three cartridges differ from the 9MM is they are all more powerful but they are also more expensive to shoot in quantity. Why incur the added cost of running the three when the 9MM will do the job.
Death. if that is the objective comes from three sources:
1. lack of oxygen to the brain due to a drop in blood pressure.
2. destruction or interruption to the bodies nervous system
3. destruction of a major organ that attributes to 1 or 2
None of the pistol cartridges carried by LEO's or civilians are particularly good at this job compared to a center fired rifle or 12 gauge shotgun but the latter two are a bit awkward to carry on a belt and the public optics aren't that great.
As to performance direct me to the independent study drawn from actual shootings where the 9MM outperformed the 40cal in a meaningful practical way or that modern 9MM designs are substantially better than those of two decades ago. I doubt you can. You will get a lot of comments from an ex this or an ex that claiming some advantage but they won't be quoting any real life statistics that provide practical differences between one round over the another
Aside form actual cost I would suggest the next two reason to move to the 9MM was less recoil which should allows for more accurate shooting. The recoil difference is significant. This also provides for better performance by those who are recoil sensitive. The 9MM double stack guns carry more rounds to the dance as well and if you miss a lot that tends to be an advantage. A quick check with the NYPD stats indicate between 1990 and 2000 the average number of rounds per shots fired per officer was 5.2 in actual shootings. Their average hit per shots fired ran 15%. Google is your friend you can come up with any number of stats to justify your position.
The speed of the 115gr 9MM bullets, even at Plus P would not exceed much over 1250 fps out of a 4" barrel and that has not changed in 50 years. Less velocity as you move up in bullet weight. One reason why the heavier 40, and 45acp bullets have gained some expansion improvements with the design changes in bullet construction. You can look up the expansion differences between the 9MM, 40 cal and .357Mag etc. There is not a significant difference in diameter. .40cal aka 10MM bullets and above tend to be as big or bigger than the 9MM fully expanded but not significantly. Again google it Rob. Most of the commentary I have listened to anecdotal at best or worse yet, pure parroting of marketing hype. Then you read boring analytical data drawn from actual shootings and you quickly realize there are to many variables to draw hard conclusions from any of it. But you can choose to explain the data in any way you wish to support what ever action or inaction you wish to pursue. RG from the NYPD stats above why did they ever incur the costs of switching to the pistol from the revolver. The mean average per officer shooting was only 5.2!
The local CN Police I have shot with, and it has been about five years now was shooting a Glock or M&P 40cal. At the time I wad focused on the M&P 9MM and I do recollect the 180 gr cartridges he was using had significantly more recoil than the 147 and 115 factory rounds I was shooting. For reasons I won't explain I have at hand 50 rounds of the old Black Talons once used by the Queens Cowboys. Not sure if they fit your new version of the 9MM or old but from firing them into milk jugs and the odd apple they do seem to be capable cartridges.
Good talking to you. Will settle this over a beer next time I am down in the 'wack.
Stay Dry
Bob
PS In any event we have somewhat different views coming from two different perspectives. Next time you read an article praising one gun or cartridge over another ask yourself who is paying for the article or why is the author writing it and for whom.
Bob has many good points, these are what I think is the core of the issue:
1. Anecdotes are basically useless for decision making done by large organizations.
2. If you want to cherry pick hard data to support any particular opinion, it can be done (it shouldn't be done, of course).
3. Data by itself isn't useful, you need context. And context for real world events is messy at best, particularly when they are relatively uncommon.
4. Regardless of the above, policymakers must make decisions.
I must be older than most, my entire Police career, I carried a 6 shot S&W model 10, the only upgrade I had was I went from a pencil barrel to a bow barrel, carried 3 HK speed loaders and that was it, personally I would have liked a 45ACP, but it was not my choice. Before I left the police force, I was part of a group that tested 9mm handguns for the RCMP, we shot a case load of 9mm through each handgun for failure, I believe that was in 1993
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
If you put the same most current bullet technology of premium 9mm into a 40 Smith guess which one is going to be more effective terminally?
I suggest the move is motivated by big department budgets more than anything else.
Edit: any handgunner whom reloads is well aware once you hit the magic #4 in pistol calibers, costs rise significantly.
I suggest the move is motivated by big department budgets more than anything else.
Edit: any handgunner whom reloads is well aware once you hit the magic #4 in pistol calibers, costs rise significantly.
Last edited:
Checkmate. I was waiting for that. Thanks.
Since 1975 EPS has had 8 instances engaged and killed their assailants according to the informed Gods of Wikipedia. The EPS had two shooting kills over a 35 year span and has had 6 since 2010. While those numbers seem low I grew up in Edmonton and cannot remember and instance where an officer killed an assailant. The first reported in the Wiki report was 1975 which I suspect reflects the lack of data but then again maybe not.
The move to the 9MM makes sense. Their EPS Glock22's were at the end of their service life and going with the 9MM makes sense given the savings in ammunition costs., alone. I doubt the 9MM ever lacked killing power and the move to the vaunted improvements suggested likely reflect more marketing than science. '
The EPS transitioned from the Webley in 38S&W to S&W 38spl revolvers after two Officers emptied their Webley's onto a getaway car involving the 118th Ave Br of the BMO. That would be 1967/68. All 12 bullets bounced off of the rear window if the fleeing vehicle. The Canadian Bankers Ass. was not impressed and I know met with the City after the incident.
Sgt John Underhill facilitated a purchase of a Webley for me from the EPS. I believe I paid $25 for the revolver. I remember picking it up at the Downtown HQ and taking it home in a brown paper bag. I traded it for a pristine #4 Longbranch after I moved up here.
P of PDent PM sent.
Take Care
Bob
s
The move to the 9MM makes sense. Their EPS Glock22's were at the end of their service life and going with the 9MM makes sense given the savings in ammunition costs., alone. I doubt the 9MM ever lacked killing power and the move to the vaunted improvements suggested likely reflect more marketing than science. '
The EPS transitioned from the Webley in 38S&W to S&W 38spl revolvers after two Officers emptied their Webley's onto a getaway car involving the 118th Ave Br of the BMO. That would be 1967/68. All 12 bullets bounced off of the rear window if the fleeing vehicle. The Canadian Bankers Ass. was not impressed and I know met with the City after the incident.
Sgt John Underhill facilitated a purchase of a Webley for me from the EPS. I believe I paid $25 for the revolver. I remember picking it up at the Downtown HQ and taking it home in a brown paper bag. I traded it for a pristine #4 Longbranch after I moved up here.
P of PDent PM sent.
Take Care
Bob
s
Bob, cost was not and is not the driving factor. performance was. Agencies could stay with 40, and pay for the ammo, which while more expensive, is not enough so as to justify the start of project to change out calibres. Performance, usability and lifespan of the gun are far more important factors. As for your cop buddy, his views run contrary to the views of the accepted subject matter experts making up the bulk of the industry now. There are still people that think the 45 is awesome, even when it's been irrelevant as a cartridge for decades. There are also those who still think stopping power trumps accuracy, in pistols. Idiots be idiots.
Rob whatever. "was" should be "is" in your post.
The 9MM was and is a performer nothing other than marketing has changed much there. I am glad you have moved off of the design improvements. The 9MM can now expand a bit bigger than once was the case but is still marginally smaller than the 40 and is continues to be measurably smaller the than 45acp.
But accuracy is as you point out is an important and officers should perform better with the 9MM over the 40 cal due to less recoil Most would contend he who shoots first is THE most important factor. This has nothing to do with the "enhanced improvements" in the 9MM bullet you championed before. Those are in the minds of the marketing people as I noted before there is and was nothing lacking in the 9MM performance. In it's FMJ form it was capable of penetrating WW11 era GI helmets something the FMJ 45acp could not do. I digress.
Note above I said "should" above when it comes to officer performance. These comments relate to local RCMP performance. All the officers do eventually qualify annually. Few are no better than average pistol shots and that should not surprise anyone. Most shoot the Qualifier once a year with a brief practice session or two just before the Qualification date. Instances where they find themselves requiring their pistols are few and far between and even rarer when they are required to pull the trigger. They are excellent community Officers, active in the community and as much as they can keep our community safe. Your notion of any significant increase in Officer performance I suspect is pretty thin in the real world. Most of the female officers I have witnessed shooting struggle big time with the 9MM. You may claim they might struggle less with the 9MM vs the 40cal. if you want but struggle is struggle. I am also sure you can point me to female officers who are capable of running me off the range but I doubt you can find many. Hell officers who are not interested in guns or firearm proficiency are not much better so save your breath to cool your porridge if you think meaningful accuracy has improved among the rank and file of a converted force. If hitting a human torso between 3' and 15' is your real life test it is not much of a task with a 9MM or 40cal.
Officers are missing at those ranges as frequency now as they once did. Check out real stats from the US. No point in trying to assess Canadian results there just is not enough information to be meaningful. The EPS have only shot (killed) 8 individuals in the past 45 years! That is a good thing. (The last sentence added as an explanation to the mall ninjas on this forum).
In summation money apparently never is the driving factor just "performance".
Take Care
Bob
ps My friend lives outside of San Diago. I'll let him know he is underarmed with his 40cal. I suspect Al will be impressed with the information.
The 9MM was and is a performer nothing other than marketing has changed much there. I am glad you have moved off of the design improvements. The 9MM can now expand a bit bigger than once was the case but is still marginally smaller than the 40 and is continues to be measurably smaller the than 45acp.
But accuracy is as you point out is an important and officers should perform better with the 9MM over the 40 cal due to less recoil Most would contend he who shoots first is THE most important factor. This has nothing to do with the "enhanced improvements" in the 9MM bullet you championed before. Those are in the minds of the marketing people as I noted before there is and was nothing lacking in the 9MM performance. In it's FMJ form it was capable of penetrating WW11 era GI helmets something the FMJ 45acp could not do. I digress.
Note above I said "should" above when it comes to officer performance. These comments relate to local RCMP performance. All the officers do eventually qualify annually. Few are no better than average pistol shots and that should not surprise anyone. Most shoot the Qualifier once a year with a brief practice session or two just before the Qualification date. Instances where they find themselves requiring their pistols are few and far between and even rarer when they are required to pull the trigger. They are excellent community Officers, active in the community and as much as they can keep our community safe. Your notion of any significant increase in Officer performance I suspect is pretty thin in the real world. Most of the female officers I have witnessed shooting struggle big time with the 9MM. You may claim they might struggle less with the 9MM vs the 40cal. if you want but struggle is struggle. I am also sure you can point me to female officers who are capable of running me off the range but I doubt you can find many. Hell officers who are not interested in guns or firearm proficiency are not much better so save your breath to cool your porridge if you think meaningful accuracy has improved among the rank and file of a converted force. If hitting a human torso between 3' and 15' is your real life test it is not much of a task with a 9MM or 40cal.
Officers are missing at those ranges as frequency now as they once did. Check out real stats from the US. No point in trying to assess Canadian results there just is not enough information to be meaningful. The EPS have only shot (killed) 8 individuals in the past 45 years! That is a good thing. (The last sentence added as an explanation to the mall ninjas on this forum).
In summation money apparently never is the driving factor just "performance".
Take Care
Bob
ps My friend lives outside of San Diago. I'll let him know he is underarmed with his 40cal. I suspect Al will be impressed with the information.
The numbers listed were for shootings by the EPS where they killed the intended target not where they shot their pistols.
The targets were humans not dogs. If you claim the 9MM has better performance than the 40 cal, you are inferring you are better armed with the 9MM than the 40 cal. If you get by all the marketing hype Rob continues to refer to put out by the manufacturers and their followers it just comes down to cost.
I would hope that for most Officers in this country spend most of their energy dealing with matters outside the need for lethal force when dealing with the public. I do know from interactions with officers they are well educated , informed motivated individuals who are well trained for their craft. The amount of training and practice they get with their firearms is likely a reflection on the need for skills in this area and the costs involved to provide it. It all comes down to where you want to spend the budget you have to deal with the issues in the community you serve.
Take Care
Bob
Use of the word "you" was not directed at you personally. I could have used "somebody" instead in that sentence.
The difficulty in discussing this topic is there does not seem to be any Government tracking of police shootings at the National level and from the one study I will refer to in this post one gets the impression police forces in general are not particularly forthcoming when it comes to reporting much of anything but that comment is based on a very thin and quick assessment by me. See pages 12 - 15 regarding who provided information to the authors of the report quoted below. It could be the various forces publish data feely for the public. The cursory search by me may well have missed the reports.
Wiki may not be your first choice but the following seems to be a credible source for some information "Police Use of Force in Canada: A Review of Data, Expert Opinion, and the International Research Literature. The report is quite lengthily and anyone interested in reading it are free to do so. There are enough stats in the report to allow the reader to draw any amount of evidence to justify ones thoughts on the matter. But, Sir, you seemed to think my use of Wiki lessoned the value of the information when in fact whoever drew the information on police shootings that I quoted got the information likely from the same source or from the CBC, an organization that attempts to track police lethal shootings. I know we all have our views of the CBC but somoetimes the media is the only organization that attempts to keep a check on Government actions.
Readers of this post and thread might want to take a quick peak at the report I found. The information is there and you can draw your own conclusions. From 2000 to 2020 Alberta had only 95 incidents where police shot and killed their assailants. This is an average of 4.75 per year. One year there was none another 10. My conclusion is there are not that many. What might be of interest is the number of shootings per million has almost doubled across Canada over the period. Another stat that caught my eye was the fact American police are 3 times more likely to use deadly force than Canadian police based upon shootings per million population. (Pages 24-28).
Some agencies appear to be more energetic than others when it comes to replying to the authors of the report. In reporting physical integrations with the public. (Pages 29-31). In 2019 Calgary reported 939 incidents while Edmonton reported 3,926 . Either Calgary is a way more violent city or Edmonton Police are more violent them Calgary police or the two departments used different criteria. On a national basis Edmonton is the outlier. I am a skeptic. I doubt either stat means much and I certainly think either all the other police departments took the request seriously or Edmonton was more eager to get the stats out there.
For those interested in exploring this information the report I quoted seems to be the most academic as in objective I could find. There likely are others I just am not prepared to spend the time and energy to look further. I am and have been convinced the police forces in Canada do not reflect what goes on in the US or that there is any desire by our police to hurt the citizens they are charged to protect.
Take Care
Bo
PS It occurred to me the reported information by Edmonton might have been given at the same time they were looking for new pistols. Coincidence.......
Last edited:
Rob it may because it has to the other two cartridges you quote are bigger with bigger bullets. The expanded bullets in any test are all virtually the same. Do you really think being .001" - .003" wider makes any difference. All will pass through a human body most of the time. Do you really believe there is any practical difference between being shot in the head or lungs by any of the three you quote. Be they solids or HP bullets. In the first case the lights get turned out and the second you bleed out or die of suffocation. Really! Gelatin tests pictured in the latest gun magazine are one thing the human body is another. None of the three cartridges are death ray guns. Most folks survive being shot by handguns some don't. Misses don't count. Rifles are better, Shotguns rule. Move on.
Take Care
Bob
ps My friend says you are free to have your own opinion...he still carries a 40cal for urban protection. He carries a 10MM and or a 30-30 when he and his wife go berry picking. Seems they had an experience with a Black Bear recently. The bear never bothered them but they did decide the bear needed the berries more than they did. :>)
When a subject is on a pathologist's table and a projectile is not recovered....the Doctor cannot medically determine if the subject was shot with a 9mm, 40 S&W or 45 ACP.
There is not enough difference between the wound channels to make the determination. All the Doctor can say is the wound channel was from a pistol calibre rather than a high velocity rifle.
-Stating that a Doctor can advise that the 9mm creates a larger wound channel than a 40 S&W or 45 ACP is false.
The driving force behind North American Police moving to 9mm is largely due to the FBI report that circulated several years ago. A bit funny because it was US DOJ / FBI that published the massive report on the Miami shooting to drive North American Police to the 10mm then 10mm light / 40 S&W a few decades ago.
This report combined with the age of many PD's current inventory of guns that were due to be replaced or upgraded anyways was the reason for the change.
The report, if you haven't seen it, listed several reasons for the FBI to make the change back to 9mm (I believe this is open source now and not bound by NDA).
1. Terminal Performance was nearly identical between 9mm and 40 S&W = advances in defensive bullet designs = more effective
2. Less recoil = more accurate shooting in trials of agents
3. Wear and tear on the guns was less with 9mm, lower slide velocities = guns last longer = cheaper to maintain
4. More ammunition capacity with 9mm
5. Cheaper procurement costs of 9mm (don't confuse this with civilian retail costs and availability of ammo)
-Now to say that cost was not a driving factor is false. One large Alberta Service, at the time of switching, calculated the cost savings of procuring 9mm vs 40 S&W (Just over a million rounds per year is what they normally order). The calculations showed that within 3 to 4 years of cost saving gained by procuring 9mm would pay for all of the new 9mm handguns. Cost savings drove their decision to switch to 9mm.
Personally I think it's a good change. More ammo on board, lighter recoil = more accurate shooting for most Officers, less wear and tear on guns. In large inventories cost of parts and armorer's work is a factor. Many of the current 40 S&W guns were (maybe) getting due for replacement anyways. I would not hesitate to use a 9mm, 40 S&W or even 45 ACP on duty, they are all good and do the job. (Actually pistol calibre's are not the greatest fight stoppers anyways but we have to carry something!) I do like more bullets on board and 9mm does that the best of them all.
Rich
There is not enough difference between the wound channels to make the determination. All the Doctor can say is the wound channel was from a pistol calibre rather than a high velocity rifle.
-Stating that a Doctor can advise that the 9mm creates a larger wound channel than a 40 S&W or 45 ACP is false.
The driving force behind North American Police moving to 9mm is largely due to the FBI report that circulated several years ago. A bit funny because it was US DOJ / FBI that published the massive report on the Miami shooting to drive North American Police to the 10mm then 10mm light / 40 S&W a few decades ago.
This report combined with the age of many PD's current inventory of guns that were due to be replaced or upgraded anyways was the reason for the change.
The report, if you haven't seen it, listed several reasons for the FBI to make the change back to 9mm (I believe this is open source now and not bound by NDA).
1. Terminal Performance was nearly identical between 9mm and 40 S&W = advances in defensive bullet designs = more effective
2. Less recoil = more accurate shooting in trials of agents
3. Wear and tear on the guns was less with 9mm, lower slide velocities = guns last longer = cheaper to maintain
4. More ammunition capacity with 9mm
5. Cheaper procurement costs of 9mm (don't confuse this with civilian retail costs and availability of ammo)
-Now to say that cost was not a driving factor is false. One large Alberta Service, at the time of switching, calculated the cost savings of procuring 9mm vs 40 S&W (Just over a million rounds per year is what they normally order). The calculations showed that within 3 to 4 years of cost saving gained by procuring 9mm would pay for all of the new 9mm handguns. Cost savings drove their decision to switch to 9mm.
Personally I think it's a good change. More ammo on board, lighter recoil = more accurate shooting for most Officers, less wear and tear on guns. In large inventories cost of parts and armorer's work is a factor. Many of the current 40 S&W guns were (maybe) getting due for replacement anyways. I would not hesitate to use a 9mm, 40 S&W or even 45 ACP on duty, they are all good and do the job. (Actually pistol calibre's are not the greatest fight stoppers anyways but we have to carry something!) I do like more bullets on board and 9mm does that the best of them all.
Rich
Last edited:
