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

[Yukonstorm]

Just a few brief comment, I lived in NYC all my life until less then 2 yrs ago. Beat cops always existed, they still patrol on foot, and always have. yes, many ride in cars, but walking posts exist. There have been countless documented incidnts where an offier was outgunned by the BG. Why not give him more firepower, under extreme duress, how many shots out of 6 .357's will find their mark? If a high cap offers him a 1% advantage, give it to him. Were in the 21st century, the bad guy doesnt always have a Rohm22 anymore.

 

[QuestionEverything]

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.

That equipment would be nothing short of a grenade launcher or other explosive ordnance, and the officer would have to fire before the "potential gang members" do. If one officer with a conventional firearm goes up against a carload of people who are loaded for trouble, the cop will most likely lose even if he's packing an AK-47. Unless the hoodlums are incredibly bad shots, one of them will hit the cop before he can hit all of them unless he can blow them all up with one shot.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

More ammo to spray at their targets, because many city LEOs around the nation do not practice with their firearms very much.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Just a few brief comment, I lived in NYC all my life until less then 2 yrs ago. Beat cops always existed, they still patrol on foot, and always have. yes, many ride in cars, but walking posts exist.

That's funny, I grew up in Brooklyn, went to high school Manhattan and college in Brooklyn. Lived in every borough except the Bronx over the course of 35 years there.

I vaguely recall cops walking around in Manahattan, and on the subway (cars don't fit down there) but I don't remember it being common.

And in the outer boroughs (anything but Manhattan), I never remember a "beat cop" walking around. IF there are stats available for such I'd bet its a small number.

So we give the three beat cops in NYC and the 20 guys on horses in Manhattan semi's . . . . everyone else gets a revolver!

 

[Autolycus]

Because autos make more sense for the police. It gives them an advantage. Anyone here should ask themselves why they carry an auto, or why they carry a revolver.


My only beef with police carrying high caps is if the citizens cannot. Remember the AWB crap on the sides. Other than that if the officer wants to carry an auto let them. IF they want to carry a revolver let them.

 

[Reyn]

I think this is a perfect example of the phrase "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it".

 

[MCgunner]

"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."

Oh, damn, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that because I've never shot a man I'm not entitled to my first ammendment rights or an opinion. Facts are, in my town, only one cop HAS shot a man and one of the ones hit was a good guy! I don't even know if that officer is still here, been a few years.

Yes, I think there are better autos available than the Glock. Sure, it's easy to shoot compared to DA. It's also much easier to shoot accidently by a lightly trained officer than a DA. I like the DPS's weapon anyway far more than any Glock. They carry Sigs. Sigs they carry are DA with decocker. You have to learn to decock before holsteriing, that might be beyond some people's comprehension I guess, but it does take a DA pull to set it off. I learned to shoot DA. Cops carried .38s and .357s 80 years before the wonder nine fad came and went in law enforcement. Now days, it's wonder 40s. Criminals used Thompsons and such when cops were using revolvers. Clyde Barrow even had a cut down BAR. They stopped him with rifles and machine guns, not sidearms.

Hey, this is a discussion, probably not going to be read by those who set public policy. Don't take it too seriously. Also, learn to shoot DA before you go yappin' about it. If you can't shoot a DA revolver worth a toot, is that my fault? If you can't shoot a DA, you shouldn't have a right to an opinion, how's that?

I'll keep voicing my opinions. I ain't about to go out and shoot somebody just so I'll have a right to an opinion here.

 

[Glockfan.45]

I cant believe this point has yet to be made here.
IF WE CANT JUSTIFY LEO'S HAVING HI-CAPACITY GUNS, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ONE FOR YOURSELF? :banghead: . If you think you need a 15 round Glock to carry to protect yourself, why should John Law have to make due with a six shooter? If we cant defend hi-caps for people that work in an armed profession where they have a far better chance of being shot at than you or I how dare you gripe about Clinton coming after your 15 round magazines .

 

[TestPilot]

I cant believe this point has yet to be made here.
IF WE CANT JUSTIFY LEO'S HAVING HI-CAPACITY GUNS, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ONE FOR YOURSELF? . If you think you need a 15 round Glock to carry to protect yourself, why should John Law have to make due with a six shooter? If we cant defend hi-caps for people that work in an armed profession where they have a far better chance of being shot at than you or I how dare you gripe about Clinton coming after your 15 round magazines

It's because some people have an agenda,and rather than acknowledge both self-loaders and revolvers on their own merits,some just had to bash self-loaders,mostly with no sound basis,so they can make their preference look more superior.

Having more rounds does not generate spray and pray.
Having 15~17 rounds cannot hurt,even if a fight just happens to require far less number of rounds.

But,that's not what they wanted to hear. Some even contributed to bias the discussion by making it sound like 357 versus the "wonder nine." Conveniently ignoring that 40S&W,357SIG,45ACP are around,and there is no statistic data that even proves 357 Magnum is significantly better at one shot stop than modern 9mm hollowpoints.

 

[MCgunner]

IF WE CANT JUSTIFY LEO'S HAVING HI-CAPACITY GUNS, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ONE FOR YOURSELF?

I'm better trained than most of our local Barney Fifes...

Don't matter, really, cops ain't givin' up their Glocks even in a dumpy little town like this. Not to worry. Main thing I DO worry about is proper training and a professional attitude and commitment on the part of the officer. When you pay 10 bucks an hour, though, I guess you get what you pay for. :banghead: They can quit and go to work for WalMart and get a raise. Most of the older officers have retired or got run off here. Now, they have all these kids fresh out of training running around in squad cars. I'm not sure of their level of training and such, don't know any of 'em, just the older guys that are still there. The guys I know take their training pretty seriously else they wouldn't belong to our gun club I reckon. I just know the city has been cutting and budgets for ammo and training have taken a hit. I guess it's up to the individual officer to care about their proficiency and safety with their firearm. But, I know if I'm a young officer making 10 bucks an hour and have to buy my own .40 ammo to practice with, I ain't gonna get a lot of practice.

 

[robertbank]

One of many reasons why the US military went to semi autos is they are more reliable than a revolver. Things may have changed since 1905/06 when the decision was made to start looking at a semi but there you are. As to the police forces switching you have to look at firepower, ease of reloads and cost. The Glock's selaed the deal.

Take Care

Bob

 

[MCgunner]

One of many reasons why the US military went to semi autos is they are more reliable than a revolver.

In the military, in war time, when you're rolling in the mud of a fox hole, sure, but not in real life. I never had a failure to feed in a revolver. The only failure I've ever had on a revolver is a broken firing pin. Yeah, it happens, that's why it's good to carry a BUG, especially if you're in law enforcement. But, "six for sure" is a good motto. I carry a revolver a lot, don't see I'll be rolling it in mud or anything anytime soon. Ain't no tanks going to run it over.

And, in my experience, there is simply no way a pocket auto is as maintenance free and reliable as a pocket revolver. My pocket autos are reliable, sure, but I spend the time to keep 'em clean and lubed. You can neglect a revolver a lot more.

None of this has any relevance to law enforcement, though. A PROFESSIONAL officer should keep his or her duty weapon clean and well maintained, part of their job after all. Auto, or revolver, they should maintain the weapon and make sure it's 100 percent. Military requirements do not apply to law enforcement OR civilian carry.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Here's my question:



What REAL Advantage Do Six-Shot .357 Revolvers Offer LEO's over High Capacity Semi-Automatics?

The points have been argued back and forth. All I see (and I've read the whole thread) is one group who either:

-recognizes the advantages of the semi auto to the modern police officer, or

-feels it makes no difference.

We'll call them the common sense people.

Then, as always, there's the OTHER crowd... In this case, it's the:

- old-school auto-hater who thinks anyone who uses an auto is an untrained monkey who simply empty's his auto at every available opportunity crowd.

OR, the

- no one should be issued or allowed to use ANYTHING that I don't approve of, because I just know everything crowd.

Typical.

So, since some of you feel a revolver is simply the end-all-be-all of handguns, and that no one needs ANYTHING more, you tell me... What is the advantage of a revolver over a semi for police work?

 

[MCgunner]

What REAL Advantage Do Six-Shot .357 Revolvers Offer LEO's over High Capacity Semi-Automatics?

The only advantage I'm advocating for small departments is less training necessary for safe gun handling. Notice, I didn't say proficiency. I just think fewer BFs (Barney Fifes) would shoot themselves in the foot with revolvers. And, around here, where's the need for suppressive fire? Our gun club did help buy the sheriffs department an H&K MP5 "entry gun", though, so maybe I'm wrong on the need thing.

I think DAO handguns (not safe actions) are a good alternative, though, to a revolver. Same long DA needed, same high capacity as the other autos. This was the whole purpose of developing the DAO for law enforcement, was it not? The only disadvantage is you actually have to remove the magazine and rack the slide to make sure you're clear. You can look at a revolver and tell if it's loaded. I know, safety is between the ears, but you have to actually have something between the ears to be safe if it starts between the ears. Remember? "I'm the only one here qualified to handle this Glock........BANG!"

 

[Cousin Mike]

MCgunner, just for clarity I don't put you into the nonsense group. I agree with a lot of what you have to say regarding smaller departments, and can agree somewhat to safety and DAO's, although I don't know enough to really comment knowledgeably about why DAO autos were originally designed.

I don't know if I agree that revolvers are inherently safer, but those are matters of opinion and personal experience. I grew up handling autos though, so for me they're more natural. A revolver is intimidating to some of us children of the 80's who grew up seeing the wondernines on TV. I had to learn to get over that - and the only ND I've ever had (and hopefully ever will) was with a revolver.

If you grew up in the 80's, like a lot of new police officers, you grew up seeing everybody using Beretta 92's, Glocks, etc. in the movies. That's what LEO's carried, thats what the adults I knew owned. I know some shooters my age who are flat out intimidated by revolvers, just like some older folks are intimidated by autos.

I personally think that it should be an individual choice, and I know sometimes the people making decisions for LEO's don't always make everyone happy... but I'm sure if you ask your average LEO what he'd rather carry, most of the younger folks, or cops in urban areas would rather carry an automatic.

My problem is with the folks who think that nothing, ever, beats a .357 wheelgun no matter what the situation...

"If 6 shots of .357 can't fix it, then [insert worn-out cliche here]."

... and all that mess.

For some small town officers, I'm sure a .357 wheelie is fine for what they're likely to encounter. But if someone wants to tell me that an officer in L.A.'s anti-gang units "Only needs 6 shots of .357 Magnum to do his job," I'd tell that person he's lost 100% of his natural mind.

I wouldn't complain if smaller P.D.'s decided to carry revolvers. I don't care if they have 50 round machine pistols, as long as I can have one too... If they're happy, I'm happy.

So why does the auto-hater crowd feel the need to complain about what OTHER PEOPLE are carrying on duty, or why? Why all the not-so-subtle suggestions about "pray-and-spray." Gimmeafrigginbreak. I believe even the OP has a hi-cap auto or two... So why second guess the need for law enforcement to have them?

To me it just sounds like this:

"I should be able to have what I want, and not have to explain why. But LEO's have no business carrying Hi-cap pistols, because I don't want them to!. They suck, because any REAL man could take on a car full of threats with 6 shots of .357 Magnum. Nobody needs more than 6 rounds, because I say so."

...and even more equally silly BS. That's what I don't get. We can discuss opinions all day, but when we start talking "need," we're getting into California senator territory.

 

[MCgunner]

If you grew up in the 80's, like a lot of new police officers, you grew up seeing everybody using Beretta 92's, Glocks, etc. in the movies. That's what LEO's carried, thats what the adults I knew owned. I know some shooters my age who are flat out intimidated by revolvers, just like some older folks are intimidated by autos.

Intimidated by revolvers? They're so bloomin' simple, but then, I started shooting revolvers in the 60s and didn't own an auto until about 1986, other than rimfires anyway. I have carry autos in my battery now and my little Kel Tec gets the most duty, however. I'm thoroughly familiar with 'em, 1911s (owned two) and DAs/DAOs. The DA revolver, though is simple, can just look at the side of it and tell if it's loaded, no safeties, just a tug on a long, heavy DA trigger to master or cock and fire. I think that's the theory behind Texas's law that if you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver, but if you show proficiency with an auto, you can carry either. The revolver is a simpler, safer system for the nimrod to learn on. Autos are a little more user intensive.

Cops have different needs, especially in big cities. I, too, would let 'em carry what they could qualify with, within reason. I mean I'd draw the line at a striker fired gun, a high point or something. But, if they preferred the Sig or Glock or DAO Smith or Ruger, or a revolver, it's what they're comfortable with that matters, what they know and what they shoot best with and if they enjoy shooting the platform they'll practice more. Unfortunately, many departments carry what the department mandates and issues. That's the way it is here in Podunk.

Funny, what was on TV when I was a kid was westerns, "Gunsmoke", "The Rifleman", "Bounty Hunter", "Have Gun, Will Travel", etc. So, what was my first handgun? It was a Hawes .22LR/mag single action revolver. I shot my Uncle's nickeled S&W K22 masterpiece a lot, though, when he'd loan it to me. Then, along came "Dirty Harry", but I had enough sense to know my first big handgun should be a .357, so I bought a brand new Ruger Security Six in stainless, 4". Later I got a M19. I haven't been without a DA .357 K frame sized revolver since. I've owned a lot of other stuff, but I feel my collection would be really insufficient without a medium frame .357, probably the most versatile handgun extant even today. Of course, I play a lot in the outdoors, or have. Getting old and it's harder to play too far from the truck anymore. :banghead:

 

[Cosmoline]

One of many reasons why the US military went to semi autos is they are more reliable than a revolver. Things may have changed since 1905/06 when the decision was made to start looking at a semi but there you are. As to the police forces switching you have to look at firepower, ease of reloads and cost. The Glock's selaed the deal.

Actually, the US military continued using revolvers for most of the 20th century. The 1911 was the main sidearm, but by no means the only one.

The Glocks are good firearms, but I would question whether they're any more reliable or easier to field strip than, for example a Ruger Security Six. Indeed, Glock advises you in the strongest possible terms to go to a certified armorer to have any serious work done on it. There are even special proprietary tools needed for such work as sight adjustment or removal.

If you grew up in the 80's, like a lot of new police officers, you grew up seeing everybody using Beretta 92's, Glocks, etc. in the movies. That's what LEO's carried, thats what the adults I knew owned. I know some shooters my age who are flat out intimidated by revolvers, just like some older folks are intimidated by autos.

I've noticed this many times. Indeed if you do a search here you'll find people asking if wheelguns can even be used after being dropped! They somehow got the idea that revolvers are these complex, fragile antiques. I like Glocks, but I don't doubt that some hammering from the butt of a GP100 would leave the Glock a lot worse off than the Ruger.

I should be able to have what I want, and not have to explain why. But LEO's have no business carrying Hi-cap pistols, because I don't want them to!. They suck, because any REAL man could take on a car full of threats with 6 shots of .357 Magnum. Nobody needs more than 6 rounds, because I say so."

Well I was talking about issued firearms, which kinda are a mandatory item that "we" should get to decide on. Since the taxpayers buy them. I see benefits to both platforms, but what I do question is the sweeping rejection of revolvers by departments of all sizes. I question how much of this was motivated by real life tactical advantages and how much was motivated by a desire to "modernize" and keep up with other, larger departments.

For example, the threat of multiple armed gangsters is often cited as a justification to the move to higher capacity semis. I myself have thought along these lines before. But is there even a single incident where an officer was outgunned because he just had a revolver? Is there an incident where giving him a high capacity nine or forty would have turned the tables? I'm just not convinced there's that much practical difference between the short guns when it comes to shootouts.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Semi-autos have the advantage of capacity.

That being said, I think the police should be equipped with six shooters simply because I don't feel the police should be better armed than the citizens.

 

[Jeff White]

I'd like to address the myth that officers who work for small agencies don't need the same equipment and training that their brothers and sisters in large agencies do. Crime is the same everywhere. More people just mean that there is more of it. The officer who works for a small agency that serves a small population deals with the same things an officer working in the inner city does. Policing is pretty much the same all over. The only difference is the officer in the small department doesn't have near the resources to deal with problems as the officer working in a large urban agency.

The small town officer will most liikely have to deal with a situation alone or with one other officer, probably from another agency that a bigger department might dispatch 4 or more officers to handle.

Equipment and training issues are universal. Andy and Barney worked for a TV network, not any real municipality.

Jeff

 

[denfoote]

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

I think you have it reversed.
The poor marksmanship and dwindling training budgets along with a decline in the quality of recruits resulted in the higher capacity being used as sort of an engineering fix to a training/personnel problem!!

 

[sicario103]

No one has yet answered my question on how in the world would spray and pray only apply to semis or did I miss it?!

Anyways, would you rather have a 5 or 6 shot revolver?

Making every shot count is the ideal! 1 shot 1 kill. But in real life it ain't easy, especially when you're being shot at or faced by multiple threats. Only Chuck Norris in Delta Force can shoot 3 round bursts and kill 3 BG's. The bottom line is: you will have misses or be forced to throw rounds to suppress or for whatever reason. With a semi you got more rounds on tab, quicker reloads, can carry more spare ammo on you. Lastly, nowadays semis are just as reliable as any wheel gun. So how can you say that a semi doesn't offer any advantages for LEO's?

In my country, police officers that wanted to switch their 6 shooters to semis had to take a course. If I'm not mistaken this was at their own time and money. Now, you only see the older cops close to retirement or stationed as school cops or behind the desks that might be carrying a revolver (and that's very few). Also, all police officers are given only 1 box of ammo a year! Every cop is still willing to buy their own spare ammo. So why would they go through all that trouble and money if they thought a wheel gun was enough? So with just capacity alone a semi > revolver.

It's not just about a cop with a 6 shooter being able to hold his own against BG's. It's more than that; he has to be able to stop them. And a high capacity semi increases his chances.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I can't speak for LEO's but to answer for me,
Yes.
I would rather have a 5 or 6 shot revolver any day of the week over any auto loader. I hate autoloaders. I hate the d*mn brass flying back at me. It makes it much harder for me to handle recoil. I don't mind even handling the recoil from a 44 magnum or a lightweight .357, but I despise shooting autoloaders.

 

[Checkman]

Clean97GTI
I

think the police should be equipped with six shooters simply because I don't feel the police should be better armed than the citizens.

But in Nevada the private citizens can carry hi-cap semi-autos - so your argument is moot. I guess in states like California and New Jersey you can argue that the cops should be restricted to 10 rounds (California?) and no hollow-points (New Jersey) and so forth. Also lets us not forget to include whatever restrictions apply to private gun-owners in Illinois, Maryland, Mass. etc.

In many states the citizenry can still own "assault" rifles and semi-auto shotguns as well. So the cops can be very well equipped indeed.

Personally I carry a Glock 19 in my holster and a Glock 26 as my backup. My two reload magazines are Glock 17 magazines and I also have a semi-auto Ar-15 carbine and a Remington 870 police model with an extension magazine. All weapons that private citizens can own in Idaho.

Guess we're not better armed than the citizenry - at least in Idaho.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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?

Right, so why do we give officers anything other than single shots as anything more promotes spray and pray, right?

Funny how this argument has come up repeatedly with advances in firearms. Heaven forbid somebody should "waste" ammo.

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?

Actually, no. You are already behind the curve. You should have had the long gun out already. The problem is, cops don't carry long guns around with them everywhere they go, all the time, and they don't often have time to go back to the squad and get a long gun to use in the fight.

Talk to the guys with revolvers in the Miami FBI shootout. Talk to the Newhall guys....figuratively speaking, of course. Long guns were present in both cases. Officers had issues with reloading revolvers. Things happened very fast and were very deadly for the good guys before being quite so deadly for the bad guys.

A nifty example comes from the North Hollywood shootout. One of the officers arriving on scene was a motorcycle cop who was something like 4 months short of retirement and had NEVER fired his pistol in the line of duty other than at the range. As he noted, he carried something like 68 rounds on his person and he fired every round he had that day. Most motorcycle cops don't have rifles or shotguns on their bikes. Bicycle cops don't either. Same for foot patrol officers.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

A Subjective Response

I don't have any objective data. I've never been an LEO, never been in a firefight that didn't involve squirtguns, never had to pull a weapon in defense of self or others.

That said . . .

I have an imagination, so let's use that.

Assume for a moment that I've lost my mind and signed up for the local sheriff's department, and assume that they've lost their collective mind and accepted me onto the roster.

Since I'm new, they tell me what they'll issue, but they also tell me that I'm free to supply my own hardware, but if it doesn't eat standard department food, I have to feed it on my own nickle.

So, what do I do? They've offered me a nice Beretta 92 with a 12-round capacity mag of 9mm, or the 96 with 10 rounds of .40 cal. They have both available, since they've been transitioning from the 92 to the 96 recently.

I have my own Springer 1911 GI that's all broken in and smooth, got an XD40 and XD45, and a 4" S&W 586-7 (that's a 7-shot .357) and leather for all of them.

Here I am, about to embark on a new LEO career (yes, we've all lost our minds here), and I have to choose what I'm gonna carry.

I start thinking about all the places I might find myself, who might be involved, what the game might be, and how many players might be attending. I have shot hundreds of rounds from every one of my pieces at the range. I'm not worried about whether I can hit something.

It's not about what's cool. I have no one to impress with a fashion statement. It's not about my fondest affinities. I may love the aesthetics of the revolver, but this is about staying alive. So, I contemplate.

In the end, I compromise. I like the hitting power of the .357 and the .45s, and I like the capacity of the 9mm. I settle on the XD40. It's got the punch, it's a bit lighter than the .45, and I have 12- and 15-round mags for it.

I figure that, under most circumstances, I can probably get the job done with the Smith. Then I remember that we have some new and improved bangers in town that are fond of hi-cap gangsta gear. It's unlikely I'll ever have to match heaters with them, but it only takes once.

I can just imagine how stupid it would be not to make it home just because I shorted myself on firepower.

Subjectively, then, I'm choosing an autoloader with punch and adequate capacity. I'm well aware that my .357 will hit harder than the .40 but the extra depth of the spare mags provides . . . just a little more comfort.

Even as I make the choice, I realize that it's based as much on feeling as fact.

Still, I picked the auto.

(Did I mention that I insisted on carrying my carbine in the truck?)