I believe Cincinatti bought 1100 9mms. We bought .40's only because Smith couldn't promise us a delivery date on nines.
Let's not start the caliber wars, they've taken place on all sites. To paraphrase an ex SAS training specialist on the difference between calibers:" We can stand here all day and argue about which is better if you get sloppy and put a bullet somewhere other than where it ought to go. What you can't argue is that if you run out of bullets before you run out of bad guys, you're ........... dead."
If you bought a 9 and you're looking for re-assurance, I carried a .45 for about 18 years. I carried a 9 by choice for years and now carry a 9 on my own time. The gun/ammo are a tool, you need to use the tool, sufficient for the task, you can develop the highest level of skill with.
One reason for 9mm instead of 40 is logistics. If the department has a large amount of say Colt SMG or MP 5 in 9mm why not go with 9mm handguns. That is one reason the Federal Bureau of Prisons will probably never use anything but a 9mm handgun. they have almost as many 9mm SMG's.
To revisit this slightly, a number of agencies who adopted the .40 have regretted the move for a variety of reasons. These reasons include falling qualification scores (shot placement is the single most important affectant of "stopping power"), broken weapons, increased numbers of workmans comp claims for hand/wrist injuries(whine, whine) , increased repair costs and increased ammo costs.
To look at the last in detail, the most important part of a weapons system is the skill of the user with the system. This requires training and ammunition. Total this up for say a 50 person department, and you're talking a substantial difference in costs without a corresponding increase in efectiveness to use a larger caliber.
A forum community dedicated to Smith & Wesson M&P Pistol owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, performance, gunsmithing, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!