train with what you carry. Are you going to put a hp into a gun that has only ate cheap hardball and absolutely know its going to feed? Are you going to be able to control a gun with a fighting round when you have never shot one and it react different than training ammo?
The FBI uses different duty and training ammo. Many police departments do also. They have a fixed budget for ammo. Think about how much more training they could get in with FMJ for training. I understand shooting some duty HP but it's not needed all the time. I don't know of anyone who only shoots premium HP's for training.
This is from Dave Spaulding:
During the conference, I was able to sit down with Law Officer's
Tactical Ops columnist, Jeff Chudwin, and of course we talked about all things firearms related. We both expressed concern about the increasingly high cost of ammunition. It's more than doubled in the last five years, and you should expect it to double again.
I've tried to pin down why the rise has been so severe while talking with industry representatives and have heard myriad reasons. Although I can't prove it, I suspect the price is rising due to demand. As long as the demand is high, ammo companies will continue to increase their profit margin. I don't say this lightly. I have many friends in the business, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Depending on the volume of ammo purchased, duty ammo can cost twice as much as full-metal jacket training loads, which means an agency buying duty ammo is actually buying half the amount of ammo they could be. Consequently, they're probably training and shooting less, and if you think about how quickly shooting skills perish, this is just flat out wrong!
"I can't believe the number of agencies that still insist on using duty-grade hollow point ammo for training," said Chudwin. "I can't tell the difference when I shoot training versus duty ammo, and I doubt that many others can either." Great point!
The trend of training with duty ammo began in the revolver days when agencies were using .38 target wadcutters for training, but carrying .357 magnum ammo for duty. Naturally, the felt recoil and muzzle blast were substantially
different and actually became a factor in gunfights where it affected an officer's ability to prevail. Legal experts even maintained it could affect the outcome of lawsuits against police agencies where wrongful deaths and failure to train were named as part of the suit. Agencies quickly began to train with duty-equivalent ammo and the concerns of disparity in duty vs. training ammo faded. Jump forward to the era of the semi-automatic pistol, and we discover that even though training ammo is powerful enough to cycle the action of a duty pistol, agencies still think it's a good idea for training ammo to have a hole in the end. Not necessary, folks!
The current generation of duty ammo comes from the factory with flash-retardant powders mixed in. The concern about overwhelming muzzle flash during conflict is no longer a factor. The truth is, more muzzle flash will be experienced using training ammo than duty loads. Because much of the recoil experienced when shooting a semi-auto pistol is generated from slide cycle and velocity, the felt difference between duty and training ammo would have to be measured with a bench rest.
It makes more sense these days to spend disintegrating tax revenues on purchasing training ammo and shooting more, rather than worry about not
training with duty ammo. If an officer misses during conflict or does something to get the agency sued, it's more likely that the lack of trigger time will be a factor in the suit, not whether the training ammo was duty-equivalent. Bottom line
: Less-expensive training ammo should be used as intended. It reduces cost and expands the training program.
I can tell the difference in +P 9mm vs. FMJ cheap stuff, but it's not much of a difference in my opinion. I would rather they have more trigger time and cheaper ammo.