LEO thoughts on moving from duty P226 9mm to P227 .45acp?

[Hauptmann]

I know, the idea of moving from 9mm to .45 in this day and age would draw a few frowns. I've been using a P226 9mm for a number of years for duty, and a P239 9mm for off duty. Prior to that used a P229 .40(duty) & P239 .40(off-duty), and a P220 .45(duty) & P245 .45(off-duty). So, I have been there, done that in terms of trying out all that I was authorized to carry for my agency. Skill-wise I am well above average in my agency in speed/accuracy/reloads, and have excelled at what ever pistol was in my hand. I try to get to the range once a week to shoot if I am able.

That being said, I really enjoyed using .45acp, but I kept running into the handicap of the low capacity on the P220/P245. So, from a practical shooting point of view the P220/P245 got dropped, and I moved on to a more comfortable capacity level. We recently were approved to carry the P227 .45, so that opens up the .45acp option again. Ammunition is not much of a concern as I have access to agency ammo, and reloads if things get tight. My current duty station is mostly traffic enforcement, so lots of intermediate barriers.

Generally I find it hard to get an open minded opinion on matters like this since the .45 guys and 9mm guys won't budge from their camps. I find that LEO opinions can sometimes be a little more enlightening. Not a caliber war here, just looking for some tactical advice for duty belt equipment.

[LSP552]

For me, I'd let the timer and accuracy make the call. I went from a 9mm 226/225 combo to P220/225 then back to the 226. I just shot the 226 noticeably better and faster than the 220. That was me, everyone is different.

For an agency, I wouldn't go from 9mm to .45 for all the normal reasons.

I can't offer any info on 227 related gear.

[psalms144.1]

I love the .45 ACP. It's an authorized caliber for my agency, and make/models are pretty wide open - 1911s to Glocks, and everything in between. I've got several 1911s, several 45 Glocks, used to have an issued HK 45CT, and have fondled the P320C 45 quite a bit. What's on my hip? A G19, with a G26 on my ankle.

Why? I love the "comfort" factor of that big honking 45. But, frankly, going from a G19 to a G30 (capacity-wise the equivalent of what you're thinking about) means cutting my on-board ammunition capacity by 1/3 - like going from two spare magazines on the belt to only one. And, frankly, between the two like-sized platforms, there's a MEASURABLE and consistent loss of performance FOR ME - I have to slow WAY down in order to maintain acceptable accuracy between the 9mm and .45. I mean, duh, the laws of physics don't get suspended even for the .45 ACP. A heavier bullet at close to the same velocity is going to have more recoil. With the 9mm - 45 transition, the projectile is nearly twice as heavy - so there's just no way to get away from the extra recoil.

So, for my money, that's a bad switch, UNLESS you live somewhere where you might run into aggressive large critters. When I went to Maine recently on vacation, I took my G30, because the chances of running into a mean ass moose in the woods is pretty high where I was, and if I have to poke holes in one, I want them to be the biggest, heaviest hits I can deliver. IMHO, that does NOT translate to the needs of modern LE, even with intermediate barriers in the mix.

But, that's just ME. If you're not confident in the ability of your chosen/issued 9mm load to do what you need specifically WRT barriers, then switch. Better to have fewer rounds that you're confident in than more of ones you're not.

Let us know how it works out!

[KeeFus]

My first duty weapon in 1995 was a Sig 226 in 9mm. Since 2000 I've been carrying a 45 in one shape or another (Hk USP 45 full size and Compact, Glock 21, and now M&P 45). That said, I'd go 9mm again in a heartbeat. As I see it, you are giving up 5 shots per magazine. So, if you carry 3 mags (1 in weapon and 2 on duty belt) you are essentially losing a magazine (15 rounds) by going to 45. As we have discussed here, there is essentially no difference between 45 and 9mm ballistically with modern ammo...so you are not really gaining anything by going to 45.

I'd stay with the 226 and have more rounds.

[BehindBlueI's]

I *like* the .45. When I'm on my own dime for ammo I carry it and just reload practice ammo. My department now issues practice ammo again, so I carry the .40 and practice on their dime. If they went to 9mm, I'd also go 9mm and carry and practice on their dime. I don't have real strong preferences any longer, although emotionally (vs logically) I'm more attached to the .45. Because reasons. I'll carry a 9mm, .357 magnum, .40, .45, though, and feel confident with any of them. I will reserve the right to tease 9mm fans with the "just as good as..." line until I'm a rambling old man and rookies are using ray guns and have no idea why that's funny.

Our state police carries the P227. I've shot a trooper buddies of mine. It was alright. Not something I'd put the money into to replace my P220 or P226, but if I was starting from scratch I might consider it. FWIW, I carry the P226 on duty, a .40 SCT with 13 round flush mag, 15 round SCT mag on my belt, and another 13 round mag on my ankle. I replaced the SCT grips and had Sig Custom Shop do a trigger job and install the SRT. I've been quite happy with it. Out of state travel, I usually revert to the P245 for the concealment edge.

[SCSU74]

I've carried both calibers on duty, but the comparison at the time was a glock 21 gen 3 vs glock 17 gen 4. I had carried the 21 for about a year and kept getting hassled by a buddy of time to try the 17 for Paul Howe's CSAT standards. I finally took him up on it and shot the 17 a lot faster and more accurately. After seeing the results I went to the range staff to get their thoughts on the caliber change. They had a display with our duty rounds through various barriers in all 3 major calibers 45, 40 and 9. 45 and 9 were so similar I made the switch. I felt comfortable with both, but the capacity and split time favored the 9 for me. Currently I carry a 226 w/ 20 round mags, I don't miss the .45 at all. It really comes down to how you do on a timer, if they're similar time/accuracy wise I wouldn't see a need for a switch.

[Hauptmann]

It sounds like the three primary factors that I am hearing here are the improved speed, accuracy, and magazine capacity of the 9mm are too important to ignore. I have done some work on the shot timer, and indeed speed is a factor here. I think for now I will stick with the 9mm and see how a couple of the other officers do with their P227s when they get them. Thanks for all the advice.

[11B10]

My first duty weapon in 1995 was a Sig 226 in 9mm. Since 2000 I've been carrying a 45 in one shape or another (Hk USP 45 full size and Compact, Glock 21, and now M&P 45). That said, I'd go 9mm again in a heartbeat. As I see it, you are giving up 5 shots per magazine. So, if you carry 3 mags (1 in weapon and 2 on duty belt) you are essentially losing a magazine (15 rounds) by going to 45. As we have discussed here, there is essentially no difference between 45 and 9mm ballistically with modern ammo...so you are not really gaining anything by going to 45.

I'd stay with the 226 and have more rounds.



I'm confused. It seems your vote is your last sentence in the 1st paragraph ("you're not really gaining anything..."). If that's true, why have you "...since 2000 - been carrying a .45 in one shape or another?"

[KeeFus]

I'm confused. It seems your vote is your last sentence in the 1st paragraph ("you're not really gaining anything..."). If that's true, why have you "...since 2000 - been carrying a .45 in one shape or another?"

Because we can NOT carry anything else...policy dictates no personally owned weapons...

[Lon]

We looked at the 227 a couple years ago as a possible replacement for our 9mm 226/229s. We let all the officers who wished to do so to test fire it to see what they thought. At the same time I gave a presentation based of DocGKR's data in re: ballistic performance of the 9mm and .45. The predominate opinion was that they wanted to stick with 9mm based on recoil and quicker follow up shots.

From a FI perspective, I noticed that the good shots were good shots regardless, but did have slightly slower times. The problem children and the average joe officers suffered even worse degradation of performance.

Edit: have they got the bugs worked out of the 14 rd mags? They hadn't when we looked at them. For me, I carry a 229 w/18 rd mag and 2 20rd reloads when in uniform. So with the provided 10 rd mags I'd be slashing my ammo supply in half, damn near. No thanks.

[HCM]

I carried a P-220 .45 as a duty gun back in the day and then carried a .40 from 1996 - 2014. I can shoot a 226/228 or Glock 17/19 faster and more accurately than either. We carried 185 grain JHP's in 45 so I didn't give up much going to the .40.

I like 45 acp but a 1911 / 1911 trigger is the only thing which could tempt me to carry one again for duty. Not that it's an option for me anyway.

I think the key things here are "Traffic Enforcement" and "intermediate barriers". To me, Traffic enforcement says you are working by yourself and stopping at least some vehicles with multiple occupants, if things go bad and you have multiple opponents, more rounds is more better. The TX DPS Highway Patrol used to issue the SIG P-220 .45 acp. One of the incidents which spurred their move to .357 sig was a trooper firing 18 rounds of .45 acp into the cab of a tractor trailer with none making it into the cab. Now bullet technology has advanced since then but penetrating intermediate barriers is not the .45's strong suite. +P .45 may improve intermediate barrier performance but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

[Beat Trash]

It sounds like the three primary factors that I am hearing here are the improved speed, accuracy, and magazine capacity of the 9mm are too important to ignore. I have done some work on the shot timer, and indeed speed is a factor here. I think for now I will stick with the 9mm and see how a couple of the other officers do with their P227s when they get them. Thanks for all the advice.

I think that you made a wise choice.

We're issued M&P9's. A couple of Chief's ago, the Chief floated the idea of permitting personal 45 act pistols for Patrol and issuing SWAT 45's. Most of the officers considering the move looked into the cost of having to purchase duty gear, as well as about 1,000 rounds of training amor per year vs. free issued duty gear and free training ammo in 9mm. Even if the 9mm ammo wasn't free, the cost difference between training ammo for the two calibers is substantial.

The SWAT unit at the time consisted of about 45 officers. The SWAT commander and his supervisors/team leaders looked into the idea. After doing their research they informed the Chief, "Thanks, but No Thanks".

Especially with the currently available duty ammunition, I would not intentionally trade a 9mm for a 45 acp duty pistol. The increase in speed, accuracy while shooting at speed and capacity are not worth trading off just to get a bullet that is 2.5mm larger in diameter.

Off-duty, I carry a 9mm by choice. In a couple years when I finally retire, the pistol that I will ride into the sunset carrying will be some type of 9mm.

[11B10]

Because we can NOT carry anything else...policy dictates no personally owned weapons...

Sorry, KeeFus - so very obvious!

[Sammy1]

If the ammo is free go for it. I'd love to carry my POW G21 on duty, (currently issued G22.)

[Hauptmann]

I carried a P-220 .45 as a duty gun back in the day and then carried a .40 from 1996 - 2014. I can shoot a 226/228 or Glock 17/19 faster and more accurately than either. We carried 185 grain JHP's in 45 so I didn't give up much going to the .40.

I like 45 acp but a 1911 / 1911 trigger is the only thing which could tempt me to carry one again for duty. Not that it's an option for me anyway.

I think the key things here are "Traffic Enforcement" and "intermediate barriers". To me, Traffic enforcement says you are working by yourself and stopping at least some vehicles with multiple occupants, if things go bad and you have multiple opponents, more rounds is more better. The TX DPS Highway Patrol used to issue the SIG P-220 .45 acp. One of the incidents which spurred their move to .357 sig was a trooper firing 18 rounds of .45 acp into the cab of a tractor trailer with none making it into the cab. Now bullet technology has advanced since then but penetrating intermediate barriers is not the .45's strong suite. +P .45 may improve intermediate barrier performance but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.

The lack of barrier penetration ability with the .45 has been a concern of mine in going to more of a highway patrol duty station. I have done a couple of car shoots in the past and it took Winchester Ranger Bonded 230gr running at around 920fps to come close to the penetration ability of the 9mm and .40 loads we tested. My impressions of 9mm and .40 in those tests were that the .40 did an all around better job of maintaining great penetration, and at the same time the recovered bullets were in much better shape than the 9mm bullets. I can see why Doc still recommends the .40 as being a superior caliber in and around vehicles. At this point I am still sticking with the 9mm, but I am attempting to move to a tac light setup and for an agency issued gun that will only be in .40. Not the sexiest caliber now days, but at least it won't be very ammo dependent and I have confidence in its capabilities.

[BehindBlueI's]

The lack of barrier penetration ability with the .45 has been a concern of mine in going to more of a highway patrol duty station. I have done a couple of car shoots in the past and it took Winchester Ranger Bonded 230gr running at around 920fps to come close to the penetration ability of the 9mm and .40 loads we tested. My impressions of 9mm and .40 in those tests were that the .40 did an all around better job of maintaining great penetration, and at the same time the recovered bullets were in much better shape than the 9mm bullets. I can see why Doc still recommends the .40 as being a superior caliber in and around vehicles. At this point I am still sticking with the 9mm, but I am attempting to move to a tac light setup and for an agency issued gun that will only be in .40. Not the sexiest caliber now days, but at least it won't be very ammo dependent and I have confidence in its capabilities.

Our .40s are 180gr Federal Tactical Bonded and have performed quite well in shootings though auto glass/body panels.

[Hauptmann]

Our .40s are 180gr Federal Tactical Bonded and have performed quite well in shootings though auto glass/body panels.

How's the muzzle flash on those? Federal HST has quite a bit. We mostly carry Winchester Ranger Bonded which has some of the lowest muzzle flash I have encountered.

[BehindBlueI's]

How's the muzzle flash on those? Federal HST has quite a bit. We mostly carry Winchester Ranger Bonded which has some of the lowest muzzle flash I have encountered.

My initial response is "pretty tame" but in fairness, I don't have a point of reference for other .40s. "Less than .357" seems like a poor answer... It's never been enough to bother me during low light, including tac bay work.