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

[VHinch]

My dad has been in law enforcement for 20+ years, and a defensive tactics instructor for much of that, and we've often discussed this very subject. His response is always that for him, in his situation (rural sheriffs dept) if the decision were his, he would still be carrying a 4" .357. The reasoning? Six for sure. He says he's fired autos enough to know that they will all mafunction at some point, and he just prefers the feel of the revolver in his hand. He also always jokingy adds, "In all my years doing this, I've never once had to shoot more than six people in one shift."

V

 

[Steve C]

IMO FWIW is the police are a political organization run, funded and controlled to a great extent by politics. Politics is mostly about perceptions and very little about fact, reason or rationality.

There are many examples, the adoption of high capacity semi automatics is one of them. The police where getting shot at occasionally by criminals with semi automatics shooting lots of rounds. The police of course want to shoot lots of rounds back. It makes them feel good, makes them feel like something is getting accomplished. The police leadership and government politicians want to do something too for the same reasons. The perception that something is being done is more important than if anything useful is really being done.

Another example was the push by the LA police officers and leadership to go to a .45 caliber or at least larger caliber handgun after the armed robbery in LA where the guys where covered in Kevlar and where shooting full automatic high powered rifles. They claimed the 9mm they where issued lacked enough stopping power against said bad guys. Regardless of the fact that a .45 or .40 would have been no more effective against the body armor these guy wore than the 9mm they where carrying. Regardless of the fact that an effective 9mm military armor piercing round is available that could be issued for such circumstances but no such armor piercing ammo is available in .45 acp. or .40 S&W. The police and the politicians got the "perceived" improvement in caliber approved. Another triumph of perception and 'feel good" over rationality or fact.

 

[GRIZ22]

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

I would agree with "modernization". I started as a LEO in the 70s. The prevailing attitude at the time was ANY semi-auto was an unreliable jam-o-matic. That changed in the 80s with many agencies switching to usually the 9mm at that time. A 9mm will give you the energy of a +P+ in an easier to handle package with a higher capacity. Most LEOs would have a real challenge to adapt to the recoil and muzzle blast of a 357. The way to solve this would be more training and that's where the bean counters would take over and say stay with the 38. There are other factors involved. My agency switched from a SW Model 66 to the SW 6906. Virtually everyone carried a SW Model 60 as an off duty gun. The 6906 was small and compact enough so most carried only the 6906. One gun, less training to master, better accuracy than a 2" J frame, all together a better deal. I don't know of a agency that doesn't advise against spray and pray.

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.

I will tend to agree with you to an extent on this point. The problem is the officer, especially a patrol officer, doesn't take that shotgun everywhere he goes. People would start to complain about the police walking around with shotguns. Many police gunfights start with what seems to be a very innocent call. I was the Senior Firearms Instructor at my office for over 10 years and I always told everyone "If you're going into something where there's a good chance of a fight, always take a long gun, shotgun, sub-gun, or rifle". I know of more than one case where the armed BG gave up without a fight when he realized we had smgs, shotguns, and/or rifles. This includes times the BG had a long gun. Once the odds got over 1:1 for long guns in the fight he didn't want to take any chances.

LEOs get as much stress inducing training as their budgets allow. Being cool under fire is usually an acquired thing that comes with experience.

Patrolling in pairs in great. The worst part is solo cars are usually the norm in rural areas (where they probably need pairs more) due to budget considerations.

All that defense of semi-autos said my daily carry gun since I retired is a SW Model 66. If I carry an auto it's usually a GLOCK.

 

[roscoe]

What about if you are a beat cop on foot by yourself? You certainly cannot carry a long gun easily on foot, except maybe a P90. In that case I would prefer a high-capacity semi-auto just in case.

 

[Dr.Rob]

The wondernine craze started in 1935. It didn't really catch on here in the US until the mid 70's when the US Army started looking at a replacement for the 1911.

S&W had a moderate success with the model 59, but until the 92F became the official sidearm of the US, revolvers were still commonplace. Cops like new shiny hardware as much as the rest of us, and companies like Glock took full advantage of marketing to departments looking to replace an entire inventory, rather than a cop or two looking to retire his carry gun.

You have to remember, hollowpoints for auto loaders were not that common in the 70's.

The fallout? AD's went up, marksmanship went down as departments transitioned. Departments realized they neeeded new training programs with those new auto chuckers.

The upside? High capacity, reliable high tech autos with new and improved ammunition coupled with new tactics are not designed to 'keep up with the bad guys", rather to outclass them.

Fast forward to today. The average police recruit has likely never handled a revolver. Hollowpoints are common. Auto pistols are made from high density polymer and steel, revolvers of titanium alloys and rubber and may hold 8 rounds.

Today's revolver isn't yesterday's either.

 

[jlh26oo]

My reasons for auto aren't the typical ones I guess- it's no longer for ammo price of 9mm (since switched to .45acp) and not for capacity.

I did initially move from revolvers to autos specifically for 9mm ammo prices (when cci blazer was $3.86 at academy), and capacity was just a bonus.

I have since realized other advantages- lighter, thinner, and flatter platforms that just fit my hand better and shoot better for me; and paradoxically (in my experience ONLY) my autos have been more reliable than the revolvers! But now that I shoot .45acp, and do so from a 6 + 1 capacity pistol, price and capacity are kind of out the window as advantages vs revolvers.

What I miss most about revolvers, especially since I retrieve brass now, was that you just drop the brass where you want it, instead of picking it up off the ground.

 

[Skywarp]

Less reloading when firing 31 times into a car.

 

[TestPilot]

I certainly do not agree with some people asserting that if the shooter does his job right higher capacity is not needed. I have not heard of a single police officer who got to choose where and how many opponent to have a gun fight with.

It has been shown by actual incidents that not only is there a situation where a reload,either with a revolver or with a self-loader,was needed,the shooter was actually a competent one. Jim Cirillo who was personally involved in 17 gunfights mentions New York reload. Keep in mind that his team used a revolver. This means that,as an ex-NYPD officer,not only does he feels the need for more than 6 shots,he also thought reload with a revolver took too long that he thought it may be better just to give it up and carry three guns. And,this is a person who is known not to advocate spraying bullets,and nor have he done so in actual gun battle.

Also,let's not forget ergonomics. If I was given a choice between a six shot revolver and a 7 shot Colt M1911,I would choose 1911. And,it is not because it carries one more round in the magazine. What is ergonomic may vary between individual,which is why I don't advocate forced conversion to self-loaders from revolvers against individual officer's will.

Also,I do not agree with "it's because of militarization" and "high caps looks bad." That logic is not so much different from people who wants to ban self-loading rifles because some how black semi-auto rifle equals "military" in their mind,and wants to ban "high capacity" magazines because they think higher round capacity in itself would generate some sort of evil.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I'd say their reasons closely resemble my own for choosing a "high" capacity semi-auto handgun over a revolver:

Total maximum capacity (six versus eighteen) with quicker reloading times, assuming additional filled magazines already on-hand. When hit rates for trained police during shootouts approach 30% at close (~9 yards) range, I sure do like the idea of six hits versus two.

Rate of fire really wasn't much of a consideration for me, and as others have pointed out, a revolver can be emptied pretty darn quickly, too.

 

[Jeff White]

It really makes no difference

I carried a revolver on duty when I first started, first issue service weapon was a Model 65 Smith. Later I traded it in for a Model 66 when an officer retired and his became available. A year or so after that we started a trial program for automatics. Autos have always been my personal preference so I volunteered. I have carried an auto on duty ever since. However I have always carried a revolver as a BUG, first a Colt Agent and currently a S&W Model 36 J Frame. I never have found an auto I was comfortable with in that role. Again personal preference.

In 2003 Thomas J. Aveni MS of the Police Policy Studies Council published a paper: Officer Involved Shootings: What We Didn't Know Has Hurt Us.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf
Basically it says that while some agencies have experienced higher hit ratios since adopting auto pistols others haven't had the same experience:

An in depth review of Portland, Oregon's police shootings revealed an increase in the number of shots fired per incident from 2.6 rounds per revolver to 4.6 rounds fired from pistols. However the study also seemed to suggest that hit probability increased with the adoption of semi-auto pistols. From January 1, 1983 through January 5, 1990, Portland police reportedly struck adversaries with 24 rounds out of 67 fired (36% hit ratio). Firing semi-auto pistols from July 21, 1984 through February 7, 1992, officers struck their adversaries with 19 rounds out of 44 that were fired (43% hit ratio).

Although data gathered in the late 1980s into the early 1990s seemed to suggest that hit probablility had increased with the adoption of pistols, in retrospect that data was inconclusive. There were too few shootings with pistols upon which one could derive definitive conclusions. In addition, many of the officers who were among the first to carry pistols belonged to specialized police units that were afforded more training with pistols than would prove to be practical when pistols were adopted en masse.

In my opinion another reason hit rates initially go up is that no department I know of just hands a guy an auto and turns him loose. Officers go through what is for most of them, their most intensive firearms training since the academy when they transisiton. Quite simply those skills are fresh and the hit rates climb.

It's not about hardware at all. Revolver v. auto? Who cares? It's a software issue. With adequate training wither suffices. With inadequate training niether will do the job.

Jeff

 

[sicario103]

Posted by Cosmoline

Is it doing more harm than good by encouraging spray and pray shooting?

This issue always ticks me off (no pun-intended towards the poster). How does a semi encourage spray and pray? You can spray and pray with a semi, pump, lever action, and six shooter just the same. Spray and pray is not solely restricted to semis.

Posted by Cosmoline

if they can't get it done with six rounds of .357, isn't it time to get the long gun out?

As someone already said, most times cops can't carry it all the time or have access to.

Posted by highlander 5

When you got 15+ rounds in a mag who needs marksmanship?

I hope you're kidding.....

 

[Highland Ranger]

What about if you are a beat cop on foot by yourself?

Do beat cops still exist? I thought that went out with the 50's

I grew up in NYC in the 70's and 80's and we didn't have them then - cops walk their beat in a car.

Do other cities have beat cops?

I still say - if you have 6 rounds, you are hopefully more judicious about using them. With 17, and ready to go reloads, pumping 10 or 50 into a minivan ain't no thing.


THe question is have the number of rounds fired per incident gone up universally across the country . . . .

 

[kmrcstintn]

I cannot and will not begin to fathom WHY this is the trend; I will share some examples of 'late bloomers' and 'nonbloomers' (AKA: made the switch from revolvers to semiautos)

1) Pennsylvania Game Commission: made the transition from revolvers to semiautos in the last 2 years; the semiauto of choice after testing by selected end users...Glocks in .357 Sig and Winchester ?Tactical? 125 grain .357 Sig load...not a very far venture from what they had...

salaried officers were issued S&W 686's, Safariland speedloaders, and Winchester Silvertip 145 grain .357 magnums; voluntary deputy officers had the latitude of any 4" 6 shot .357 magnum revolver and compatible speedloaders and were issued the same ammo

2) I worked at a hospital in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania in the Surgery Department; we took care of prisoners from the local ?state? penetentiary; 2 guards escorted the prisoner into the surgery department and 1 was always armed with what appeared to be a S&W K or L frame revolver...I felt that asking them what caliber and what load was not politically correct due to the conservative atmosphere in the department

3) I used to frequent a small gun shop in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania that employs former LEO's and is 'friendly' to current LEO's; one day a 'federally contracted security guard' comes in wearing an older Taurus 4" barreled .38 spl revolver and his load was either Winchester or Federal 125 grain semijacketed hollowpoint .38 spl +p (the same stuff my father was issued when he worked contracted security work at the local Federal courthouse in the late 80's and early 90's...his issued sidearm was a Colt 6-shot .38 spl. snubby); I can't fathom why a Taurus unless it was his personal sidearm, but he said it 'served him well for several years'

 

[mrcpu]

What about if you are a beat cop on foot by yourself?

Do beat cops still exist? I thought that went out with the 50's

I grew up in NYC in the 70's and 80's and we didn't have them then - cops walk their beat in a car.

Do other cities have beat cops?

They must, I just finished Blue Blood by Ed Conlon, and he was working the streets as a beat cop in NYC up until just before 9/11...

I don't know all the right terms, but maybe not all the boroughs had 'em, perhaps just some. I think he was in queens.

 

[Soybomb]

So? Nobody ever said a cop with a wheelgun could fire eight rounds a second. Neither platform has any real world rate of fire advantage, though obviously as you reduce recoil by reducing the power of the round, you can help increase ROF. There's a price to pay for that, of course.

As far as tactics are concerned, if they can't get it done with six rounds of .357, isn't it time to get the long gun out?

His rate of fire record isn't as much what I was referring to as his reload and returning to fire speeds. Its going to take me alot of time to learn to reload my revolver anywhere near as quickly as I can a semi-auto.

Hey if you're going to shoot someone, its time for the long gun. If they're out of the car, pinned down behind a wheel on their car, or driving their car when they need a firearm though a handgun might be all they can get to or use in that situation.

When you're trying to keep the worst shooting and least trained/practicing cop safe, I don't see a revolver as being any advantage at all, and if anything a handicap over a semi-auto. More rounds, faster reload, less recoil, often a lighter trigger.

 

[Dienekes]

Doesn't matter what we think ,even with all the data and logic on our side. To an overwhelming degree, police departments are bureaucratized, politicized, and generally neutered to the point that all decisions (weapons just being a minor but troublesome one) are made for the comfort and convenience of the leadership. All knowledge flows from the top and there is no substantive discussion, let alone feedback. (Think the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland"--or "Dilbert".) Those people are well insulated from the consequences, and the occasional police disability retirement or funeral of someone they don't know anyway is an acceptable price for them to bear. (There is always plenty of time for funerals but never enough for training.) The only thing that strikes fear into their hearts is a lawsuit that can get to them. The rest is just talk.

Training officers have to work with what they have--time, personnel, budget, policy, weapons and facilities. It's amazing that anything gets done right.

Been there, got the T-shirt--but "it don't mean nuthin'."

 

[Gord]

Everybody knows that the best, most manly old-fashioned cops simply carry single-shot rolling block .45-70s. They don't need more than one round to get the job done. All those cops with sixguns only have them so that the extra capacity makes up for their lack of fire discipline!

Gimme a break. If it were physically feasible to make a major-caliber wheelgun with a 10-round cylinder, six-shooters never would have existed. Having more rounds on tap before needing to reload is never A Bad Thing. Contending that an officer with a revolver will carefully aim each of his shots where the same officer will fire wildly with his "wondernine" is pretty illogical.

I'm all in favor of better firearms instruction for cops these days, but it's the training, not the weapons, that precipitate controlled fire or wild blasting. I don't doubt that the same cops who empty their Glocks at the drop of a pin would be more than happy to fan their revolvers empty just as quickly as possible.

 

[MCgunner]

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.

Hmm, I guess Glocks (the most numerous firearm in all of law enforcement) gets a pass here? I mean, the "safe action?" I venture to say any revolver is safer for a nimrod cop to handle and carry than a Glock. Witness the highly trained DEA Agent who was the only one there qualified enough to handle this Glock ....BANG

I think 90 percent of the small town forces around would be better off with revolvers. Major cities that can (if they would) put in for the firearms training and have a lot more gang and drug crime might need the firepower, but PORT LAVACA, TEXAS? I mean, there's one cop involved shooting here in the 25 years I've been here. And, in that one, the spray and pray of the reserve that had the shoot out resulted in the cop's 40 hitting the hostage sitting across the room! I had a friend who did the investigation on that one. He hit the BG, too. I guess you put out enough lead, somethin' gonna get hit, eh?

 

[TestPilot]

Hmm, I guess Glocks (the most numerous firearm in all of law enforcement) gets a pass here? I mean, the "safe action?" I venture to say any revolver is safer for a nimrod cop to handle and carry than a Glock. Witness the highly trained DEA Agent who was the only one there qualified enough to handle this Glock ....BANG

I think 90 percent of the small town forces around would be better off with revolvers. Major cities that can (if they would) put in for the firearms training and have a lot more gang and drug crime might need the firepower, but PORT LAVACA, TEXAS? I mean, there's one cop involved shooting here in the 25 years I've been here. And, in that one, the spray and pray of the reserve that had the shoot out resulted in the cop's 40 hitting the hostage sitting across the room! I had a friend who did the investigation on that one. He hit the BG, too. I guess you put out enough lead, somethin' gonna get hit, eh?

So your assertion is that:

1. Because some cops are incompetent,they are somehow better served with a pistol with heavier and longer pull trigger which might result in more miss?

2. There is some sort of unknown universal rule book criminals follow that says if you fight against the police in a town where there was no shooting for 25 years criminals should make sure that they give up or try to get shot before an officer fires more than 6 rounds?

3. Cure for bad trigger discipline is a heavier and long pull trigger?

 

[Jeff White]

People who's sole experience with violent encounters is watching them on TV and reading about them in books should refrain from pontificating from behind their keyboards.

Until you really study the dynamics involved in a violent encounter and train in realistic simulations, you haven't a clue about what you're talking about. There are way too many people in this thread who think they are gunfighters because they watched one on TV and can shoot a tight group on the square range.

Jeff

 

[Michael Courtney]

This should be viewed as a individual decision rather than an administrative one. In other words, if you're answering the wrong question if you are thinking about what you would make a department do if you were in charge of the department. The right question is what would you want the department to do if you were a police officer depending on a handgun for daily use.

The best semi-autos can be very, very reliable with good ammunition that has been subjected to extensive feeding and functioning tests with a given pistol. Given ergonomic advantages (better trigger, and faster recovery from recoil), and the advantages of higher capacity, I would hope to have the option of using a Sig P229 in .357 Sig or .40 S&W. I'd pick a revolver over a Glock, because the trigger and ergonomics are disadvantages for me.

Higher capacity and quick reloads also offer the realistic possibility of laying down cover fire. This isn't a common need in law enforcement, but it would be important in a situation where there are active shooters in a school, shopping mall, or other crowded place and the LEO's at the scene can gain time for innocent parties to escape by using cover fire to keep the bad guys heads down. It might not happen often, but when it does happen, the LEOs at the scene will be glad for high-capacity semi-autos and plenty of reloads.

Remember that a LEO's handgun is not just for his own protection, it is for the protection and service of the general public. It's not enough for the handgun to meet his self-defense needs, it should be chosen to meet the needs of the public he protects and serves.

Michael Courtney

 

[VHinch]

"There are way too many people in this thread who think they are gunfighters because they watched one on TV and can shoot a tight group on the square range."

There are way too many people on this board in general with that belief. All of my military experience was training only, never actual combat, and I willingly acknowledge that the two are NOT one in the same.

V

 

[ronto]

A few quotes from people who have known alot more about gunfights than I'll ever know...or want to experience:

"One hundred rounds do not constitute firepower. One hit constitutes firepower."
-Maj. General Merritt Edson U.S.M.C.

"The most important lesson I learned...was that the winner of a gunplay usually was the one who took his time."
-Wyatt Earp

I rest my case in favor of the revolver.

 

[Gord]

Because it's impossible to produce slow, aimed fire with an auto.

Same logic the "I'd rather have a hit with a .22 than a miss with a .45" crowd uses.

Brilliant!

 

[telomerase]

According to the local paper, recently the Rochester police department fired about a dozen rounds at an unarmed 16-year old kid at close range, missing him entirely as he drove around a parking lot crashing into police cars. Finally they stopped his vehicle by ramming him. (Not saying that the whole incident was a bad idea, a 16-year-old in a car is less likely to miss than the Rochester police department).

Clearly the police need more firepower. Turret-mounted 40mms at minimum.

(Actually I agree that autos are generally better, IF they're maintained... except maybe for DAO autos).

And if we assume that the police are enforcing some legitimate law (and not just kicking down doors at the wrong address... this town has "NW, NE, SE, SW" addresses and there was a bit of comedy involving map reading skills last week), maybe more use of carbines would mean fewer wild shots.

Legalizing more forms of nonlethal weapons for civilians might help their development, too... maybe the Rochester police could hit high school kids if they had those twin UV lasers with Taser-type current running down the beams. And it wouldn't be such a disaster when they made a mistake. (Though I don't think those things work through glass.)