Why Did It Take So Long For Semi-autos to Catch On?

[Hangingrock]

My brother's mid-80's Glock 17 was a jam-o-matic piece of junk, even with FMJ ammo.

Just maybe your brother was problematic as opposed to the Glock. I always thought the Glock was idiot proof but then I could be wrong.

 

[Saleen322]

I have been a LE firearms instructor since 1987. Most of the first 18 years were revolvers, S&W K frames 10, 64, and 65s. They would sometimes malfunction with the most common issue the ejector rod backing out and locking up the revolver. For about 7 years I trained staff with semi-automatics, Glock 17s. The training ammo was 124 gn FMJ Federal Amer Eagle. I can't remember running a complete relay without a stoppage of some kind. The semi-automatics were at least 10 times more prone to stopping than a revolver under the same conditions but they did hold more ammo. However, if you look at the overall numbers, both the revolver and the auto loader will most likely work when you need it. But if the question is which is more reliable, it is the revolver; if the question which is the handgun of choice for the future in law enforcement, it is the semi-automatic.

 

[ku4hx]

My first semi auto was a Browning "T" model Hi-Power I bought new in 1970. It caught on with me right away.

But I grew up watching late '50s and '60s TV and movie westerns and as many will tell you, the wheel gun was one of the firearms that won the west. John Wayne carried a six shooter in many, if not all, of his westerns. Nobody argued with John Wayne's choice.

I don't recall a "Western" with a semi auto until 1969's "The Wild Bunch". Being inundated with a revolvers, the first gun on my mind to own was a mid '60s Ruger Blackhawk. It was the closest thing to a gunfighter's choice as I could get.

 

[PJSprog]

So, if your entire purpose in posting in this thread is to defeat an argument that I have never made, yet none the less you are willing to create out of thin air for the purposes of defeating it... Good day sir.

(sigh)
Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've overlooked the content of my posts, as you seem to be missing the content of your own as well.
Good day, indeed.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Just maybe your brother was problematic as opposed to the Glock. I always thought the Glock was idiot proof but then I could be wrong.

Nope- It jammed a lot for many different users using different mags.

It was simply a piece of junk. Glock is not somehow immune from making a turd.

 

[Drail]

Word.

 

[Confederate]

I'm old enough to remember and, as others have said, it wasn't until the Beretta 92, S&W 459 and Sig Saur P-series that autos out-of-the-box became not only ultra-reliable, they significantly increased firepower. I still see malfunctions on the firing line, but not with the ultra-reliables. (Many are 1911s and earlier autos.) As much as 1911s are beloved by many, the standard issue Colt 1911s failed miserably in military trials when it was used as a control gun. In one of the earlier tests, the Beretta 92 failed on an average of once every 2,000 rounds and it held 16 rounds. The next was the S&W, which failed on an average of once every 952 rounds and held 15 rounds. The out-of-the-box 1911, on the other hand, failed on an average of once every 26 rounds and held only eight rounds.

Revolvers not only were far more reliable than autos, in the United States they significantly far more powerful and well built. Brits tended to use small guns that were exceptionally well made and they still view revolvers as "cowboy" guns. Ditto for Israel. But with the large expansive regions in the American heartlands and western regions, not to mention that the animals we run into in the wilderness regions tend to be a bit more formidable than those that lurk in the forests outside Sratford-upon-Avon!

I recall the dueling articles between Skeeter Skelton and Bill Jordan on which was best, the auto or the revolver. Readers loved the good natured ribbing the two gave each other. But even Skeeter (himself a great revolver fan) admitted most of his autos had been worked on to make their actions smoother and to increase reliability. I had a Star BM 9mm I was very fond of, as it was reliable and it fed hollowpoints. Still, every one onc awhile I'd get a failure to feed our eject and, though I'd bet my life on a clean, well cared for gun like the Star, I wondered how I'd feel if I pulled the trigger and the gun went *BANG* {click}. Now I'm not troubled by such thoughts as autos so rarely jam these days.

 

[Gun Master]

LEO's and civilians through the 1970-1990's felt secure, until there was more fire power (gangs, etc.) . The majority of police chiefs and sheriffs went on record for the safety and effectiveness of the wheelgun.

When the LA shoot out happened, it was evident LEO's needed more (semi-handguns, semi-rifles, sniper, etc.).

As for me, give me a S&W model 10, 1911, & 12 gauge pump (and I have others).

 

[TruthTellers]

Another reason I believe it may have been is that hollow points in semi auto's may not have been as effective like in .357's or may have caused feeding issues, but I don't know what the state of hollow point technology was in the 70's and 80's.

My guess is that 9mm and .45 probably didn't have the velocity back then to be reliable in causing expansion.

Does anybody have any info on hollow points during this time period? Did police even know that hollow points were better than round nose bullets at the time?

 

[Gun Master]

Hollow points in semi's, NO! HP in wheelguns, YES!

This is not all inclusive, but merely a conjecture on my part. My choice.
Others may have clinical evidence to the contrary.

Sound off !

 

[Ibmikey]

Click click, i like your comments on semi auto pistols. I was responsible for the firearms training program at our police department, began with an $82.67 (we bought all of our equipment in those days) S&W model 19 that i cherished. For many years i wrote proposals to purchase S&W 39/59 pistols for every officer and standardize the department, this met with favor from the Chief but deaf ears with city hall bean counters. I received permission to carry my Browning HP and later Mod 39 as test vehicles, some ten years later i was issuing new officers 659's and in another five years i was finally able to purchase 150 Glock 22 & 23 pistols. I skipped discussing all the upgrades and optional pistols officers could carry at their own expense, now finally everyone carried the same caliber and pistol. I purchased approximately 100,000 rounds of duty ammo each year which also was used for training purposes...rotation of ammo in magazines was required on each range training day. Malfunction drills were part of the training program but the actual incidence of malfunctions was so rare that no one feared the reliability of their pistol. Of the few malfunctions encountered it was most often a primer inserted backwards.
Change is slow in many organizations but i was always proud of my continued effort to " modernize" our arms and ammunition on a regular basis.

 

[AStone]

Subscribed.

I caught on today at the range.

I transitioned from revolver to semi-auto.

Even though I started with semi-auto, I transitioned to revolvers 8 years ago.

Today, I switched back .. probably permanently.

I'll offer the "why" later.

 

[AStone]

ETA: After reading through this thread more carefully this morning, this post from last evening is not so relevant. I think I initially misunderstood the topic. So I removed it.

 

[Delmar]

Something not mentioned is training the support personnel and the change of magazine holders, duty holsters, additional magazines, not to mention the cost of training the officers. Its not just the cost of the weapon itself.

While the older semi autos are nice weapons, they tended to cost more, proper maintenence such as replacing mag springs, recoil springs and such was more than wheel guns, and the available ammo was typically ball instead of soft point/hollow point ammunition.

The first reliable expanding ammunition for semi automatics that I can recall came from the mind of Lee Jurras and his "Hi Vel". Mainly it was lighter weight bullets driven at higher velocities. Even then, the 45ACP, being a medium speed bullet, was a bit problematic in the field of expansion.

The 9MM was a step child for a long time and while the velocity was there for expansion, not many companies were marketing such stuff.

 

[Hangingrock]

As much as 1911s are beloved by many, the standard issue Colt 1911s failed miserably in military trials when it was used as a control gun.

I question the validity of using a 1911A1 as a control gun. The 1911A1 pistols in the military inventory were war time production during WW2 along with the issued magazines. Service life included WW2, Korea, and Viet-Nam.

The protocol was apples to oranges. The testing was slanted in favor of Berretta for other than practical reasons if one studies the procurement procedures and politics of the time period

 

[Delmar]

+1 to all of the above.

The so called "test" was very political in nature, and to put a 50 year old 1911A1 against a brand new weapon shows the slant of the board.

Had a new 1911A1 with better sights and metallurgy been the control weapon, I dont believe there would have been much of a contest.

Some of the "improvements" the M9 was supposed to bring was the improved ability of shorter handed shooters to be able to operate. Yeah.....ever look at the girth of a Beretta pistol in comparison? Not to mention the reach to the trigger?

I suppose the commonality of cartridge between the NATO nations makes some sense, supply being a biggie in wartime. So we have the 9MM instead of the 45 ACP.
The role of the pistol was also changed over the years....the original purpose of a pistol was close range defense. With the grip of the M9 so wide, I'd just as soon have a double stack 45ACP if I am going to have to carry that large of a sidearm, but that is just my personal preference.

The fact of the matter is that the SIG beat the Beretta in just about everything but cost, and in this case, the beancounters won.

I hear rumors that the Beretta is to be replaced. Not holding my breath on it, but it wouldnt surprise me, either. I have a tough time believing that the M9 is going to last as long as the 1911 did. To me, it is nowhere near as durable.

 

[Gun Master]

Amen to both of the above postings (# 40 & # 41).

The legacy of the 1911 is hard to beat.

It has been said that imitation is the most sincere form of flatery.
I know of no other gun that had as many imitators as the 1911.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I personally feel that with good shot placement, a modern officer is not outgunned when armed with a revolver. Training is a must, and good equipment like modern holsters and speedloaders are needed, but if I was on the streets I wouldn't feel underarmed at all with my GP100 and a few speedloaders full of .357 magnum SJHPs.

 

[jad0110]

As much as 1911s are beloved by many, the standard issue Colt 1911s failed miserably in military trials when it was used as a control gun. In one of the earlier tests, the Beretta 92 failed on an average of once every 2,000 rounds and it held 16 rounds. The next was the S&W, which failed on an average of once every 952 rounds and held 15 rounds. The out-of-the-box 1911, on the other hand, failed on an average of once every 26 rounds and held only eight rounds.

During the original trails prior to adoption of the 1911 (in 1910 IIRC), the 1911 fired 6,000 over a 2 day period without any malfunctions reported. A quality 1911 with quality magazines that are in spec should run just fine. The problem, as others pointed out, was that during the later trials that resulted in the adoption of the Beretta, worn out 1911s with questionable magazines were put up against fresh guns. The Beretta IMO is a fine gun in its own right (would like to own one someday), but the competition wasn't exactly level.

That said, I'm a revolver guy at heart, but felt the need to defend the 1911. Its not perfect and can certainly fail, but some of the bad rap its gotten of late is a bit unfair.

 

[Jim K]

Hmmm. Well, I guess "ClickClickD'Oh" has really told us off; anyone who does not agree with him is not only old fashioned, but guilty of ignorance, inexperience and stupidity.

Sounds like a certain candidate for president.

Jim

 

[AStone]

So, just poking my head in for a minute ... I have nothing to contribute to the history of the transition -- I am a student here for that, and I appreciate learning this from this thread. But it is an interesting history that I've never really thought about much in an explicit way, even though I guess the question hovered in the back of my mind. This makes it explicit.

But on a more personal note, in a sense, what I'm reading here -- at least from some posters -- is parallel to my own transition from revolvers to semi-auto's in the last few weeks. Factors for me: speed, capacity, trigger, newer materials and engineering making the semi's more reliable (though not more than revolvers) and improved ballistics (for me, in 9mm).

Eight years ago when I switched from a brief period with semi's (SW and Kahr), I fancied the simplicity of the revolvers over semi's. But now, as I watch civilization sliding into a (potential) hole, I value the semi's more for the above mentioned characteristics. So, I'm moving back to semi's. (I'm letting go of my revolvers -- my life style does not allow me to practice with both platforms, and I have to keep my kit small due to professional mobility, so I'll focus on one or the other, not both.)

In any case, good reading all. I'm learning. Thanks.

 

[ugaarguy]

We'll close this one on the positive note of post #46 rather than letting it spiral back into interpersonal arguments.