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

[JohnKSa]

There was a special done on a CA jeweler, Lance Thomas who ended up shooting six attackers (out of a total of 11) in four separate incidents.

His first encounter involved two attackers (you can see that his average was closer to 3 attackers per encounter). He used 3 rounds to disable the first attacker--his revolver only held another two rounds. Fortunately the other attacker complied with Mr. Thomas' commands after his accomplice was disabled. After that, he placed multiple revolvers around the shop which he plans to grab, shoot empty, drop and then repeat with another. His second encounter again involves multiple attackers--5 this time. He fires 19 shots, kills two of them and is shot 4 times in the process.

The second encounter amounts to three reloads with a typical full-sized revolver. It would have been only one reload with a typical full-sized semi-auto. That's seems like a big advantage in a real world scenario to me.

 

[Jamie C.]

For me, it all depends on the job I have to do, and what sort of circumstances I'm apt to find myself in.

Just walking around, minding my own business, on a daily basis... I don't think an auto offers any real advantage over a revolver. But then I'm usually trying to avoid trouble, not hunt it down and bite it's head off.

Working as a L.E.O, however... well, I started off with a revolver, then went to a high-cap auto the first chance I got. Mostly because 1) I knew I was about a million times more likely to encounter trouble, and 2) because I didn't figure the bad guys were gonna let me call a time-out to reload. And 3) because many times, back-up was at least several minutes away, if not more.
In that sort of situation, having a crap-load of rounds in the gun is a real... and sometimes necessary... advantage.

As for Mr. Lance Thomas up there in the article... he should probably have and learn to use hi-cap autos, in my opinion. Why? Mostly because his line of work ( Jeweler ) is going to make him more likely to have to deal with armed trouble than Joe Average out on the street. People are going to actively seek him out because they know he will most likely have large sums of cash or other valuables.
I pretty much feel the same about any line of work that makes a person more likely to be a target. ( bank guard, cashier at a 24 hour curb market, etc. )

So to sum it all up, I think that for the most part, a revolver is just as adequate as an auto, but that there are certain situations or job descriptions that an auto would be better suited for.


J.C.

 

[ShelbyV8]

Having been a LEO and firearms instructor during the time of revolvers and and the transition period I can give you some of the true reasons. The auto can be reloaded easier with one hand if injured. The auto is easier to reload in a high speed persuit with one hand. They are more comfortable to carry and weight less. Too many female officers did't have the hand strength to fire double action revolvers well.

 

[wildburp]

Police Arms?

I admit not reading the entire thread, but this issue has bubbled in my brain for years. Ongoing reports of semiauto "spray and pray" fire troubles me. If I had to hit the streets again, I would choose a 4" .357 or .44 magnum revolver as the primary weapon, but would also tote a semiauto BUG in case a combat situation developed that required sustained fire. But this us why field commanders carry a small arsenal in their vehicles. The revolver gives one the fastest, most simple method of firing the all important first shot, which is all that is needed in most situations. One does not need worry if the safety is on/off, or if there's a round in the tube, et cetera. Just draw, point and pull. A properly maintained revolver works every time with quality ammuntion. Radio communications today provide superior support to the beat cop; in my day once I left the car, I was on my own (circa 1967). Unless the BG puts the first round through your forehead, today's police can summon support almost immediately, reducing their need to carry heavier arms.

I know, many will disagree - that's what makes this such a wonderful forum

wb

 

[Bullet Bob]

They can miss faster, for a longer period of time.

 

[sicario103]

Posted by wilburp

The revolver gives one the fastest, most simple method of firing the all important first shot, which is all that is needed in most situations. One does not need worry if the safety is on/off, or if there's a round in the tube, et cetera. Just draw, point and pull.

Well, all the people that I know (including myself) do not worry whether we got one in the tube or not or safety being on or off because we always carry it chambered and safety off. Draw, point and pull.

The all important first shot... in real life, you might not be presented with a clear shot or and even if you had one you might still miss altogether. It's one thing you get bull's eyes every shot at the range but there are just too many variables in an actual combat situation that will affect your shot placements. Take me for example, if I ever get attacked by paper targets, I'll stitch smiley faces on them. Now, if I was to face real flesh and bone BG's that will shoot back..... I'll let you know how I did (assuming I get to walk away) since I have not been in a shootout yet. But I can assure you that what I can do in a range, I will not be able to duplicate in a real life shootout.

And a revolver is definitely not faster than a semi.

 

[MCgunner]

Having been a LEO and firearms instructor during the time of revolvers and and the transition period I can give you some of the true reasons. The auto can be reloaded easier with one hand if injured. The auto is easier to reload in a high speed persuit with one hand. They are more comfortable to carry and weight less. Too many female officers did't have the hand strength to fire double action revolvers well.

All of that makes a lot more sense to me than any need for "firepower". Autos do have advantages not related to their round count.

And a revolver is definitely not faster than a semi.

Know what? I don't have any idea on that one. I'd be interested to see what revolver guru Jerry Miculek would have to say on the subject. There's a guy that can get the most out of either platform, to say the least... I would think, though, that for normal humans, the well trained 1911 shooter would have the advantage on the first shot, at least on placing it well, if not raw speed.