What REAL Advantage Do Semis Offer LEO's over .357 Six Guns?

Hmm..here is some stuff to consider for pro auto

1 Not as much recoil. A 9mm,40, or 45 has much less recoil as a 357.

2. Less penetration. A 357 will usually penetrate more than 9mm,40 and 45. With the seemingly lack of markmanship in the police force these days(see the 50 plus shots into the minivan) this is a plus for automatics.

3. Like it or not sometimes officers need to have more than 6 rounds on hand before reloading.

4. Automatics have safeties. I remember reading an article way back that an officer couldnt use a s&w snubby as a back up because it didnt have a safety. While i and most other gun savvy people on this board dont find this a problem, anti-gun and people who know next to nothing about guns find this to be dangerous, which unfortunatly brings up a lot of problem with our sue happy society.

I think price is a reason too for the switch, especially when there are incentives to use a cerain brand or so.

I think also that the higher capacity has resulted in poorer marksmanship training for some departments. I also agree about the longarms.

Again though using a gun is little concern to some police and is just the same as knowing how to drive a patrol car.

I think some officers need to be given revolvers to curb NDs and stray bullets from some videos we've all seen.

I've thought about this before as well. I think that in the majority of instances that require an LEO to use his or her sidearm, the type of handgun used will not significantly affect the outcome of the situation. In a very small number of circumstances, the capacity of the automatic will help win the day. Conversely, we can argue that the extra oomph of the .357 will aid the police officer in an equally small number of shootings.

It hardly matters now, though. Most handgun manufacturers produce autoloaders, and the increased competition between the much larger number of semiauto makers for LEO contracts drives prices down further and/or offers better after-purchase service. Instead of Smith & Wesson dominating the LEO market (and competing with Ruger and Colt), departments now choose between Glock, HK, SIG, Walther, FN, etc, etc.

Still...I like revolvers more.

There is a simple answer to this one. Capacity, and speed of reloading.

I believe the switch to semi-auto's was all about capacity, perceived quicker reloads, and cheaper guns. My guess is that LEO's perceive that under stress (hence the accuracy issue), they would rather have more bullets. When the Glock was introduced, it sealed the end of the revolver for police use as their primary gun.

Whatever gets these guys & gals home after their shift works for me.

Sustained firepower > "less rounds so you dont spray and pray"

i dont believe only having 6 shots will keep someone from panicing and spraying shots anyway. It takes training and a cool head to get hits during a gunfight, not the subconscious awareness that you only got a few more shots left.

Carrying a semiauto gives the LEO more confidence to deal with multiple potential criminals. When a LEO stops a car load of potential gang members by himself with any backup being avaliable, he has to have the equipment necessary to deal with them. A six shot revolver does not meet this requirement anymore.

It might ? (big question mark) make a difference if an officer answered a domestic disturbance call, was fired on, and had to lay down some suppressive fire to retreat behind. But frankly, that's what they make shotguns for. I have watched news media reports for cases where such fire was necessary, vs. cases where officers resorted to "spray and pray" with some very serious consequences. So far I have found few compelling cases that might (just “might”) favor the pistols. I personally wouldn't feel outgunned if armed with a revolver, but I suspect few officers would agree with that. This may be more of a moral and training issue then a gun one.

But that begs the question--is capcity really that important in the sort of engagements we're talking about? Is it doing more harm than good by encouraging spray and pray shooting?

Click to expand...

Cosmoline do you question officers need to carry hi-cap weapons? If I were to start a thread on here saying that I feel nobody needs a magazine that holds more than six rounds how fast do you think I would get flamed? Why do you think civilians need 10,15,20,30, or even 100 rounds but LEO's should suffice with six? If a cop becomes involved in a confrontation with two armed suspects that escalates into a shooting should he be limited to six rounds? Would you want to be? Its not about spray and pray, its about having the right tool for the job and the TRAINING to back it up. I stress the word training because I feel that many officers dont posess the level of training they should. That aside I say give em all miniguns if it gets them home safe at night. And puts bad guys on slabs where they belong.

Well you cannot very well knock out the light bulb with the GI recoil plug on a Model 19 -
Now with a 1911 ...

Old Mentor of mine Carried both a 1911 and Model 19 - "Yeah I might need to dim the lights or something"

Not once but twice in the same night he launched his GI Plug and busted that same bulb. I was helping, laughing, but helping.

There are a case with officer found dead with an empty revolver in his hand,but no cases where it was proved that 357 magnum would have saved the day when 9mm did not.
This is not always because the shooter intended to spray bullets for suppression effect. Resisting opponents are not easy to hit,and often more than one hits are needed to incapacitate.

Besides capacity,ergonomics also play a role. I can only tell it is different,but not whether if one is better than the other.
Also,reload is more easier. And,carrying extra magazine is less bulkier than carrying a speed loader or a moon clip.

Militarization, pure and simple. Look for your underlaying answer in why the military uses flat-guns. It is the same.

The individual reasons are not nearly as good. Trigger control and cool headedness is always the best answer for the social situation, but police are not into the old social values.

A cool, experienced patrolman with a 4 to 6 inch 357 magnum revolver and a 12 gauge 870 can still get the job done, if he has the self control to do so. Without the control, he won't be much better served by a Glock. Patrolling in pairs makes it better, if both have the control.

Jerry

if those boys in nyc had revolvers instead of pistols maybe things wouldn't look so bad as they do now. hard to crank out 50 shots from revolvers without having a little time to pause and think . . . .

He really wanted to see the .41 Magnum adopted as a mainline LEO cartridge, and I'm not sure he was wrong.

Click to expand...

Rumor has it that several major departments adopted the .41, watched scores go into the toilet, and then switched back to the .38.

My fairly limited experience with cops and guns is that the average cop is not a gunner and doesn't care to be. He/she puts in the minimum time and effort to stay "qualified". These people, IMO, should be armed with revolvers (if at all.)

My .02 the LEOs started to drink their own bath water "well,the gang bangers have them so we need 'em too".
I sorry but there was nothing wrong with the standard 4' 357 mag revolver and as far as reloads speed loaders seem to do the trick for the IDPA(?) or IPSC boys (never sure which is which)
I can still remember a local cop commenting on getting a "real"gun after the the force went to Glocks.
When you got 15+ rounds in a mag who needs marksmanship?
BTW i said that the NYC cops should be sent back to school to learn to shoot and where walking ads for returning to the revolver

Actually, the .41 Magnum was more power than Elmer specified. He wanted more of a .41 Special +P.

Jerry

as far as reloads speed loaders seem to do the trick for the IDPA(?) or IPSC boys

Click to expand...

In the perfect world all police would have the time and dedication to practice as much as the guys playing game, but in the real world I suspect they often don't and are probably served by the generally faster to reload system.

Personally I wouldn't want to walk up to a car of 4 people by myself with a 6 round gun on. All the practice in the world won't make me Jerry Miculek so I'll take any advantage I can get, including capacity. The people I've talked to that have been in shooting incidents have all agreed they didn't feel like they had too much ammo.

The following is all just my opinion. Worth what you paid for it.

I don't think the purchase and issue of larger capacity autos caused a change in training from "aimed fire" to "spray and pray". All the training officers I know remain thoroughly committed to the idea of producing the highest standards of firearm manipulation that their students can achieve. Budgetary constraints, though, may tell a different story. I see departments these days getting away from force-on-force training (at least for the rank and file officers). More often, departments are buying (or renting time on) computer-operated simulations theaters. These training aids can have a role in training, as several trainees can be separately run through a scenario where all the variables are known, and all the varied reactions can be judged against one another. While this might be a fun toy, I don't think it's a good substitute for actual bullets put downrange.

That said, I don't see any real difference between an officer armed with an accurate revolver and one armed with an accurate "wondernine". Well, there's one difference, actually. Most officers I know only have available to them whatever amount of ammunition they can carry as their duty load out. For revolver shooters, this would be eighteen rounds for their primary, and five or six more in a backup. If a situation involving a protracted battle arises, these officers would be at a decisive disadvantage to those armed with G17's (for example). I can readily envision situations where a decent longarm might be sitting right there, out in the car... just out of reach.

It should be entirely up to the officer to become familiar enough with the firearm in question to be able to shoot accurately. There's very little you can do in training to accurately duplicate the chemical changes going on in a person's body when the "this is real" sign lights up in a person's brain. Muscle memory carries the day.

As always, software trumps hardware, be it a six-shooter, or a sixteen-shooter.

The people I've talked to that have been in shooting incidents have all agreed they didn't feel like they had too much ammo.

Click to expand...

my best friend carried a SAW with something like 3 drums for a year in Iraq; he never complained of too much ammo either, but I digress....

Well it's now the 21st century, so you guys need to get out of the 19th. Semi autos have higher capacity, are quicker to reload, and just as accurate when compared to a revolver. If you want big get a .45, if you want fast get a .357 SIG, if you want something in the middle get a .40 S&W.

And just because Jerry M. can get 12 rounds out of a revolver faster than I can get 12 out of a semi doesn't mean anyone else can.

Why would anyone even consider carrying a revolver when they go to work to catch bad guys?